Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least
> argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined
> benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this
> will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is
> part of debian.
It will not completely solve the problem, but nothing will. It will
make a dent. That responds to the last sentence.
I believe that there is an inherent benefit to having a 100% free
operating system, and also to having systems which are devoted to free
software. I believe that the Debian name should clearly and
unequivocally stand for free software, and that this would only
strengthen the organization.
If we disagree, then we disagree, and we will all vote. I have long
since given up trying to convince you; if what I have said already
does not convince you, then probably nothing will. Fortunately,
Debian will vote, and neither you nor I get a veto.
> Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining
> of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems
> evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still
> part of the debian project. A distinct part from debian/main but a part
> nonetheless.
This is hogwash. Debian developers are involved in the MIT Student
Information Procession Board, but it doesn't follow that sipb is a
part of debian--even when sipb makes .deb packages.
> > Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the
> > freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making
> > Debian more or less free.
> No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like
> non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality.
Are you calling me a liar?
Thomas
Reply to: