Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller 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.
> I'm guessing you're thinking: fork Debian, to support non-free.
Forking Debian would imply that non-free was a part of it, which I do
not believe in. But you may call it however you like. I think it's
better to refer to it as 'migrating a part of our archive to an external
source, for the sake of the user's convenience'.
> > 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]
If Andrew's proposal passes, I see only two major possibilities: i)
non-free ceases to exist and ii) non-free is maintained outside of
> that we would need to use independent machine resources for the fork.
non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
easy it would be to get mirrors for that)
Aj is perhaps more competent than me to comment on this, if he still
follows the discussion.