Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
- To: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Sven Luther <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
- From: Sven Luther <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:24:13 +0100
- Message-id: <20040308142413.GA13272@lambda>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040308135140.GY10786@lambda> <email@example.com>
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sorry, I don't believe that we're boxed in yet. Even meeting a brick
> wall just means the route became very steep or longer. You mention
> possible actions to fix it, which are hard, but that doesn't mean it's
> not worth trying them. I think there are other possible ones, but you
> dismissed them previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.
> >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.
> I don't understand this.
They would say :
why should i care about freing the code, since i can upload those
binary only drivers to non-free.org, and all the users i care about
will be able to use it, i have no intention to take care of a small
minority who doesn't run x86.
They clearly said that nothing below 150 000 units monthly would be
worth of their notice.
Currently we have non-free, but we clearly state that it is something to
be shuned, and i guess most non-free maintainers are ashamed to work on
non-free stuff, and wish nothing more than freeing said code, or being
able to use a free alternative. At least those who trully believe in our
SC and on all what debian stands for do.
Now, if we have a officialy recognized and respected non-free.org, you
see how this will change.