On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:15:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 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.
> You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good
> because it's the current system.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost.
Well, yes, of course the thread's been lost -- you just trimmed it
all away.
Read through the above with an open mind -- ie, don't assume that everyone
thinks the way you expect them to. "Sven implied that there is a time
for removing non-free, but this isn't it". "We change when everyone's
writing free software". "But that's no change. That's the current system".
There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next,
we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy,
certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not*
need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be
distributing non-free software.
> > What he seemed to be saying was that the fact that we distribute non-free
> > software needs to and should change. And it does need to, and it should.
> > But we have a system for dealing with that already.
> Really? What is it? What is the system for removing packages from
> non-free?
The maintainer says "this package is no longer needed" or "this packages
has been relicensed under the GPL" or similar, and it gets removed. What
did you think it was?
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