On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> > free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> > close to being free it was at the time.
> Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
So, do you think this is a problem? Is it a violation of the social
contract to not have an "immediate death to anything we decide is or might
be non-free" policy? If it is a problem, as a DPL candidate, shouldn't you
be doing something about solving it, rather than just listing evidence of
something that's already well known? If you don't think it's a problem,
was there any point to your mail that wouldn't've been summed up with
"HAHA! aj's wrong!! What a loooser!"?
If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main,
why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug
"help", and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform
says that "We need a leader who will champion our cause". What cause is
this an example of you championing?
Cheers,
aj
--
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