Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:22:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> > > > much bigger pressure to either free the code or replace it by free
> > > > alternatives, and you will hurt the upstream much more than by removing
> > > > non-free, after all, you will encourage their competence, and make them
> > > > loose market share.
> > >
> > > You can do that already, *now*. No need to change the Social Contract
> > > for that.
> >
> > Sure, and i already *did* in the past.
> >
> > And it is the remove non-free proponents which want to modify the social
> > contract, remove non-free, and stop us from being able to do the above.
>
> One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> size in the past.
Well, didn't we remove all the netscape crap and adobe acrobat reader
for example ?
Also, please look at all the packages that where previously in non-free,
and which now are in main because of a licence change ? Ocaml is a
package i maintain, and which was moved to main after discussion with
upstream, and where upstream freed it. This meant all the dependent
packages have been moved from contrib to main, which is a rather nice
things, and i guess there are >30 ocaml-related stuff in main now.
The two remaining ocaml-related packages in non-free are mostly
documentation, and one is not even from the same upstream, and, well, it
probably is as free as many documentation we currently have in main or
something.
And the fact that we are even having this discussion is a proof that you
are wrong. Did not many of the 'remove non-free' camp claim that, yes,
they used to use non-free in the past, and no, they didn't think we
should remove non-free 5 years ago, since back then they were using some
of the software in it, for which they did find free replacement today ?
(Not to tell the hypocricy of it all, since they needed non-free back
then, it was ok to keep it, but since now they don't have use of the
software in it, let's get rid of it, not withstanding the fact that
maybe other folk care about not yet liberated packages).
> And the repeated proposals by Raul sure give me the impression that the
> 'keep non-free proponents' want to change the Social Contract.
Well, for esthetical value, we all want to do that.
And the actual change we are speaking about, which reaffirms our
commitment to distribute non-free, adds an additional restriction in the
fact that it encourages to provides alternatives and the other stuff i
have mentioned, which even for the 'remove non-free' camp should be a
win over the status quo.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: