Re: "keep non-free" proposal

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

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:47:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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

Out of main and into ? And latest news report on this spoke of at least
6 more month.

> 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?

There may be, i have not forced the issue in the past, as i am not
maintaining the package and have been busy with other issues. I think
they don't quite like to free it, but i have enough contact with
upstream that i might relaunch the issue, and have some hope of there
being something happening. My effort has currently been on the XFree86
licence issue and on this time waster here.

> 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.

Well, the problem here is where you draw the line. what is acceptable in
non-free and what is not. I would prefer a case by case analysis.

Also, i think you forgot my own proposal, which was then gone into
Raul's one, and later abandoned in the many iterations thereof.

I would gladly have seen a ballot of the like of : 

  A) drop non-free, do not create non-free.org, stop any relationship
  with non-free related .debs.

  B) drop non-free and create non-free.org

  C) keep non-free, but take a more active hand in examining and
  removing stuff from non-free.

  D) keep non-free.

  E) Further discussion.

And for your info, i would probably have voted :

  CAEDB

Friendly,

Sven Luther