Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:01:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
> > clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
> > include the real packaging, which is but a small fraction of the global
> > time i devote to debian, but also some convincing and discussion work i
> > have with upstream to try to get the licence freed. And packaging a
> > non-free package puts you in a strong position to have this discussion
> > with upstream, and, as i can see in my case, has already proven
> > successfull in one of the two non-free packages i have been involved
> > with.
>
> You are free to think so. I believe otherwise.
Yeah, the difference is that i can draw my conclusion from my own
experience of packaging a non-free package (ocaml) which has over the
time become free, while you are only making wild suspisions.
Have you ever been involved with non-free packages ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: