On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this
> isn't it. You are saying that any time a maintainer wants to put a
> non-free package on the Debian server, this should be possible. You
> are proposing no change, ever.
No, I'm proposing we change when everyone's writing free software,
because the recognise that it's the best way of doing development and
there's no benefit, short term or long term to them in doing anything
else. Including Microsoft and nVidia. I don't have any particular concern
if this doesn't happen within my lifetime.
> Note, of course, that Sven thinks that Debian contains non-free
> software. If he still can't get it right,
"If he can't use the PC terms I insist he uses..."
> doesn't it mean that this
> noise about how "everybody already understands" that non-free isn't in
> Debian is just so much smoke?
The claim that "non-free isn't in Debian" is smoke and mirrors. It's not
even what the social contract claims -- it says "We promise to keep the
Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software". The only important
distinctions are whether our users understand the difference between
non-free and free licenses and what it means to them, whether our users
understand what software they've installed is free, and what's non-free,
and whether they know how to ensure they don't get non-free software if
they don't want it.
Cheers,
aj
--
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 could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature