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

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

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:04:08PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after.
> 
> Aren't you already? ;-)
> 
> >Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free
> >would have some weight.
> 
> If you currently threaten your upstreams with that, please do us a 
> favour and ask debian-legal to talk to them about licensing on your 
> behalf in future.

I do not, but it was the crux of Branden's argument about that obscure
adobe package.

> >>Point taken about developer motivations, but it's odd to ignore 
> >>external 
> >>non-free existing already, but ask the project to act based
> >And how much of those are you using, and how much of those to you 
> >trully
> >trust in on production hardware ?
> 
> I have third-party free software packages on production hardware. At 
> present, I don't believe I have any non-free third-party packages on 
> there, but I'd need to check to be sure.
> 
> >And then, there is currently packages in non-free who are more free 
> >than
> >packages in main, so ...
> 
> Do you know of non-free software in main? If so, please report the 
> bugs. Otherwise, please don't drag this OT yet again with a "yet 
> another definition of free" (YADOF) debate.

Well all the GNU documentation, i believe, which are not really all that
much non-free than some of the documentation packages i care about in
non-free, among them ocaml-doc, which was previously in main as part of
the ocaml package, and got moved to non-free as it became clear that the
licence was non-free (upstreams asks to be informed about changes).

Friendly,

Sven Luther