Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> Well, there is also the problematic question of documentation. It pains
> me to see that i was forced to remove the ocaml-doc package from the
> debian distribution and into non-free, while at the same time loads of
> non-free documentation still stands in main. So, i would oppose the
> removal of non-free documentation until this whole mess is cleared, not
> before a few month as i have been lead to understand.

I think the non-free documentation is on its way out of main as we
speak, and there is hope of resolving the impasse with the FSF.  I do
not object to transition periods and things taking time to
accomplish.  Was there any hope that the ocaml-doc documentation would
become free?

I do not object to the notion that there might be room in Debian for a
non-free archive which included things like documentation and drivers
for closed hardware, but the pro-non-free crowd didn't see fit to
propose any such compromises.  The only resolution you all came up
with was the "reaffirm non-free" which is, well, awful in my opinion.

Thomas