Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >>[...] I don't really care about negative
> >>effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
> >>Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
> >You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes to it, in
> >order to achieve the short term goal of having debian no more
> >distribute
> >the non-free section ?
>
> Yes, obviously.
>
> >>I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
> >>Third party
> >>non-free (like j2* packages) already exist and I doubt they would
> >>grow as
> >>quickly as free ones.
> >What about binary-only hardware drivers ?
>
> They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
> software, but I think you knew that already.
Yeah, and what do you plan to do to help fixing that ? And do you not
think this is more important than some cosmetic change like the one that
is proposed here.
> >I wish you good luck to run
> >advanced 3D graphics on powerpc hardware for example, especially on
> >modern powerbooks.
>
> At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
No, but i doubt you have access to the sourcecode of the bios you are
running, and maybe it is even possible that your system is not void of
non-free software.
> think you should help to fix that bug, instead of writing to us about
> how unfair it is that some of us don't want to support a bug of
> someone else's driver any more.
Yes, i do, but there is nothing i can do about it. I have many times
lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs which would allow to
write free drivers for those, but without success, and i have come to
the conclusion that nothing short of the full foss community moving
together, or at least a large part thereof, there will be nothing
changing. Even worse, the situation today is worse than it was one year
ago, and there is no chance of improvement.
And having a separate non-free.org archive will only give these people
reason, and be a reversal for the proponent of non-free software.
And i don't hear anyone proposing to drop non-free doing anything
against that, so two weight two measures ? IT is not ok for debian to
distribute non-free, but it is ok for debian to rely on non-free binary
only third parties, some we are even involved with, to run on said
hardware.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: