Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 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.
Except that there will probably always be non-free software, and even
if the amount on debian.org goes to zero, it might go positive the
next week.
> > 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?
I believe this is an inadequate system. What do you think of a
compromise position which would allow a package in non-free only if
there is no free package filling the same niche?
Reply to: