Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +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.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm guessing you're thinking: fork Debian, to support non-free.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:46:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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'.
That's not the issue -- the issue is support.
> > > 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
> Debian.
Sure -- and I think Andrew's proposal is a bad idea, too. Which is why
I've been working on an alternative.
> > 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)
The issue is support. Uptime, package integration, bugs and fixes, etc.
--
Raul
Reply to: