Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> But if you would have read the rest of my post, or my other mails, you
> would know that i advocate a case by case schedule for this to happen.
I don't understand. I'm asking "when is it appropriate to shut down
support for the non-free archive on Debian". Is your answer "when the
last packages is removed from it"?
(But would you really be happy having it shut down? Suppose two weeks
later some "necessary" non-free package appears: would you want to
recreate the non-free archive?)
> Do you seriously think that having java packages in non-free or not
> would have made any influence on the progress of alternative packages ?
I don't have any beliefs either way on the question. My concern is
that Debian should be free software, for the sake of clarity if
nothing else. You have already described the current state as one in
which non-free is part of Debian--indicating that the compromise
position we thought we had has more or less entirely broken down.
Anthony Towns as well has now said that the compromise is meaningless.
In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.