On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 02:00 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote: > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 01:35, Josef Miegl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On August 16, 2019 10:05:54 PM GMT+02:00, "Balló György via aur- > > general" < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > anydesk, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, unity-editor and unityhub > > > are > > > proprietary software with restrictive license. I don't think that > > > you > > > can legally distribute them > > > > Even if we could, is there a reason to flood arch repositories with > > these > > proprietary programs? In my opinion proprietary programs should be > > an > > exception, not the norm. > > > > Josef Miegl > > Whether they are proprietary or not has never been a large concern > for > Arch. What concerns us is whether they are useful or not and whether > they'd > actually be used by any amount of people. Arch is all about > pragmatism. > > Sometimes, binary blobs are inconvenient for us because if they break > we > can't fix them. However, that's an entirely separate can of worms > which I > don't want to open in this thread. > > Bottom line: If it's legal to package and it's useful and popular > software, > there's really no reason not to package it.
This is the way I see it as well. Libre or open-source solutions can come along anytime to replace their proprietary counterparts, if someone or a group has enough will to do so; but until then, having the best tool available for the job, even if it is proprietary, seems like a decent idea to me.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
