Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 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.
Right, but that's no change. We don't have to do anything to have
non-free vanish with the last package in it. That's the *current*
system.
I don't object to the fact that you are entirely happy with the
current system. Sven seemed to be saying something different: that
the current system needs to change, but not yet.
> 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".
Um, so I'm a little confused. What's the difference between "non-free
isn't in Debian" and "we promise to keep Debian entirely free"?
Thomas
Reply to: