[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 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > (and heck, you probably could have setup the APT repository for
> > > non-free during the time you wast^Wspent in this discussion).
> > I think the right place to start would be a statement of intent.
> 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.

What's this "we" ? Please speak for yourself, rather than assuming
other people will do whatever work you want them to do. Certainly if
the GR passes, "we", as in Debian, won't be providing non-free software,
whether on nonfree.org or debian.org or elsewhere.

> > 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?

Sure, keep reusing Debian's resources.

Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
a whole lot of boring make work to reimplement various bits of Debian
infrastructure? I hate reimplementing things when there's no technical
reason to do so -- if I liked that, I'd be a proprietary software
guy. Would maintaining nonfree.org actually be significantly simpler than
just forking Debian entirely? Probably, but how much? There's lots of
technical reasons to create entirely new distributions, so maybe that'd
be less unpleasant, in spite of the extra difficulties. I dunno.

I certainly don't feel obligated to make any of those choices should
this GR pass. I'm not sure why you'd imagine any particular one of them
will either need to be done should the GR pass, nor why you'd imagine
any of them necessarily will be done.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: