Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact 
> >that
> >that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
> >their licence. [...]
> 
> Not one of mine. I'm not sure what effect it has on that, but I 
> suspect a net zero. Maybe someone else will discuss that with you.
> 
> >>As you know, I think the best likely package benefit comes for those 
> >>with 
> >>unproblematic licences not hosted by Debian, but I see that you are 
> >>careful 
> >>to exclude that from your question.
> >Err, i have difficulties parsing you here, could you clarify that for 
> >me ?
> 
> I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted 
> packages in general, including project-produced packages and backport 
> projects.

And ? Is this a good thing, or a negative effect on the global amount of
non-free sfotware in general ? 

This would mean, not having a relative small, and negatively viewed
non-free repository on the debian archive, but an officially recognized
proliferation of third party non-free packages we have no control on.

I seriously doubt that this would be a good thing.

Friendly,

Sven Luther