On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:12:04PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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.
> But what if two weeks later some maintainer sees the need for a new
> non-free package? Will we start distributing non-free again?
I don't think that's a concern -- by the time we get down to there only
being a handful of non-free packages that any of our users might want,
I doubt any of them will be worthwhile enough to justify the extra admin
burden, small as that is. Whether that be four packages or six packages
or whatever isn't likely to be a big problem in practice, since by the
time Microsoft and nVidia and similar companies are writing free software,
the only stuff that isn't going to be free is going to be pretty pointless
and easily replaced.
At any rate it's a question we don't have to deal with now, and it's a
question better dealt with once we know what the few remaining packages
worth having in non-free actually are.
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