[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:44:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > We'll be better able to produce such procedures when we actually know
> > what the circumstances are when non-free software becomes rare and
> > unusual in the world. We're so far off that now, anyone who claims to
> > be able to predict what circumstances are likely to bring that about is
> > kidding themselves.
> We have seen moribund packages in non-free; we've seen packages like
> netscape which persisted for a long time despite free alternatives.  

We've seen moribund packages in main too. Big deal. If you want to do
QA work to fix either or both of those situations your both able and
welcome to.

> So I'm wondering if there is a compromise position in which non-free
> stays around, but only for packages which are necessary, etc., and
> that the judgment of necessity is made by someone other than just the
> maintainer alone.

Sure, the tech ctte can overrule the maintainer's judgement if necessary.
I can't imagine a circumstance where there'd be anyone better placed than
the maintainer to make that call though.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: