[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > *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
> > > 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
> > > sight (and heck, you probably could have setup the APT repository for
> > > non-free during the time you wast^Wspent in this discussion).

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I think the right place to start would be a statement of intent.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
> proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
> years of experience with hosting Debian packages.

Is it clear?

I'm guessing you're thinking: fork Debian, to support non-free.

> > That way, people of like mind could help you out.
> People of like mind don't touch non-free with a ten-foot-pole :P

You had indicated you were interested in good advice.  I'm not sure here
if I'm providing irrelevant advice or what.

> > The harder part is organizing resources and getting something useful done.
> Hardware/network resources might indeed be a problem. I don't think we
> can assume that any hardware donors had foo.nonfree.org in mind when
> they offered their machines/connectivity. Does anybody have an idea on
> this?

I'm pretty sure that if we're forking Debian [and that's a pretty big
if -- personally, I think it's also a bad idea] that we would need to
use independent machine resources for the fork.  Even if some donors
choose to donate access to the same underlying systems, that wouldn't
imply that any other resources could be in common.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg.


Reply to: