[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:23:29AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Let's take two examples : 
> > 
> >   netscape : it was in non-free a long time ago, and since the advance
> >   of mozilla and the other free browser, i believe it reached a point
> >   where we could sanely say that there is no use for the old netscape
> >   packages, and even that their continued existence posed a threat to
> >   security and such, and they could be removed. This maybe didn't happen
> >   as soon as it could have been, but it was because we didn't care
> >   enough, and because even the non-free removal advocate do care more
> >   aboure removing the word non-free from everything debian, than the
> >   actual freeness of the packages.
> To iterate: I consider this as the prime example for the failure of the
> 'getting rid of non-free, because better Free alternatives exist now'
> theory.
> To the best of my knowledge, Netscape did *not* get removed because
> 'Mozilla/Konqueror/Galeon are better', but because 'Oops, we can't fix
> that zlib bug and there is no upstream fix'.

Yeah, but that is a failure in the process of handling non-free, not
because this is what we wanted.

And mostly because the remove non-free proponents didn't care enough to
ask for its removal at that time.

And if you remember well, my position is to keep non-free for now, but
to more actively work to be able to remove non-free packages
individually, either because the licence changed or because a free
alternative has been found.

And i don't see anyone of the drop non-free proponent specially active
in advocating free replacement of packages in non-free.


Sven Luther

Reply to: