Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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)
Sure, but i am for a more agressive approach to this, this is the
content of my aborted GR proposal.
> > 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?
It was John Groenzen, i think, and you are big enough to grep trough
your mail archive without needing me to do it for you (at least that is
what i usually got told here anyway).
> On the other hand, 'they' repeatedly said, that while they were using
> non-free 5 years ago, they nevertheless opted for its removal.
Yeah, because they don't need the specific software anymore than was in
it. Pretty hypocritical attitude. Because they don't need it anymore,
nobody should have it.
> > > 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?
Because, if the encouraging mets results, this will mean that
_individual_ packages inside of non-free will be removed as a result of
the actions resulting from this encouragement.
But sure, it is never possible to do more than encouragement in a
volunteer project, and there is no guarantee that it will be followed.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: