Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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 ?
That was because of security problems, not because Free alternatives
existed (and those alternatives existed *for years*, at least in the
case of netscape)
> And the fact that we are even having this discussion is a proof that you
> are wrong.
Ah :)
> 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).
I don't remember people say that, could you perhaps come up with quotes?
On the other hand, 'they' repeatedly said, that while they were using
non-free 5 years ago, they nevertheless opted for its removal.
> > And the repeated proposals by Raul sure give me the impression that the
> > 'keep non-free proponents' want to change the Social Contract.
>
> 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.
What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
Michael
Reply to: