Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I hear from you and from Sven the argument that because this GR
> > doesn't fix everything, it's pointless. That doesn't seem right. It
> > fixes *something*; it doesn't fix *everything*, but it makes a start.
>
> I'm saying that the rationale -- where this GR only scratches the surface
> of the changes which would need to be done to satisfy the rationale --
> would lead us into bigger problems.
So we should do nothing because to do everything would lead us "into
bigger problems"? Then let's do what we can.
> I'd start with a better rationale.
I've given *my* rationale, and the resolution satisfies that one very
well. My rationale for the GR is to end any kind of official branding
of non-free software as Debian, and to end the provision of project
resources for it.
> > I haven't heard how you plan to clarify what is and is not Debian. I
> > haven't heard your proposals for how to communicate to users that
> > non-free is not part of the Debian distribution.
>
> You haven't? I guess you're saying I've not posted enough on this
> subject? Or, if that's not your point, what is?
Instead of asking a meta-question, why not answer the one I suggested?
How do you plan to clarify what is and is not Debian? How do you plan
to communicate that to users?
> My plan for "fixing everything" runs something like: first examine the
> problem, then come up with a solution which makes sense. [And, no,
> of course that won't solve everything all at once -- which is what I
> think you were trying to lead me into talking about.]
Ok, so what's your solution? You've had plenty of time to be thinking
about this.
Reply to: