Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
> > doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
>
> Yeah, we could bitch about this all the time, so we don't have to
> discuss any other issues.
Yeah, but it is the proponent of removal of non-free who mention it so
much.
> Do you have any concrete proposels on how we could get this going? If
Yeah, sure, don't drop non-free from the debian archive, and be happy.
> not, could you at least assume we were able to solve that problem, for
> the sake of discussion?
The reality is that the non-free removal camp says that removing
non-free will have no impact since users of non-free will be easily able
to use ftp.non-free.org and everything, but i believe that this will not
happen, nor am i interested in it.
Now, the free software/open source way of doing things is for someone to
step forward and implement things. If the non-free.org archive is
implemented in a satisfactory way, then every package in non-free and
contrib could easily be moved there, and this whole non-free discussion
would become moot.
Now, the proponent of dropping non-free are not in the least interested
in doing this, but they use their existence as argument, droping the
responsability and workload needed to make it happen on the maintainers
of non-free packages, and thus indirectly on me.
As a volunteer, you would understand how this is not something which
makes me happy, and this is definitively not what i signed for when i
joined debian.
> *I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
> supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
Ok, so you are actively searching how to create such a non-free archive.
All the more power to you.
> plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
> provide good advise and not block off every proposal at the first
Please go ahead, and show me by example that such a repository can
indeed work. Upto now i have only seen people not interested in setting
it up telling me that i should move my non-free package to an
hypothetical non-free repository ?
> sight (and heck, you probably could have setup the APT repository for
> non-free during the time you wast^Wspent in this discussion).
Oh, sure, i could have setup a non-free archive on my home box, being my
little ADSL line.
And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
and its infrastructure from me.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: