Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 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.
> Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS)
I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please,
go ahead, and prove me wrong.
That said, i wonder if the energy spent on that could not have been
better spent in something else, and if being able to be said as not
containing non-free is worth it.
This whole thing seems really hypocrit to me though, since the aim seems
to be for debian to drop non-free, but still provide non-free under