Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:13:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > Out of main and into? And latest news report on this spoke of at least
> > 6 more month.
>
> As I said, time delay doesn't bother me. Latest reports said that
> movement may happen. Bugs have been filed against the relevant
> packages.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure, some of that is probably necessary regardless. The kind of
> compromise I might be content with would involve some independent
> review of the question.
>
> > Also, i think you forgot my own proposal, which was then gone into
> > Raul's one, and later abandoned in the many iterations thereof.
>
> Well, you didn't push your proposal enough to want it to be on the
Well, as said, i am not confortable in english writting enough for such
formal things, and i have received no support whatsoever from you or
others, even if i asked for it. And at first, Raul's proposal perfectly
corresponded to mine, but then it got lost.
> ballot. If you wanted that bigger ballot; if people wanted something
> there that wasn't being offered, why did they not propose something?
Actually, i was going to propose two ammendment the exact morning i
received the ballot, and no, i suppose it is too late.
> Instead we got the "reaffirm non-free" resolution, which is about as
> vacant as I can imagine.
Well, it is nice to have, and i seconded it.
> I wish you hadn't allowed your own proposal to get co-opted into
> Raul's.
And i wish you had helped me get the right wording on it. Too late now
anyway.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: