Quoting Sylvain LE GALL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > > Well, it is quite heavy as discussion. I think non-free is needed for a > lot of us ( as user and as DD ). In fact, since i have seen this > discussion about GFDL and documentation in general, i can't stop > thinking that is really a loose of time.
What is the problem if such non-free packages are moved to another machine which is unrelated to debian.org? > I can't understand the position about removing non-free. I was thinking > that it was in social contract. Removing non-free is non sense. I have > seen in debian-devel a thread about "top 5 things you want in debian". > All is about : mplayer, java... All non-free. To my mind, if we remove mplayer is not in Debian. > non-free, we will loose a great number of user... Because if non-free We will not loose so much users because there are not that many non-free programs that don't have a free alternative. > exists that's because free alternatives are not mature enough. To my Example? > mind, it is mainly a question of "integrism". A certain part of the DD > want to have a "100% free" distribution. I don't think it is a good way > of thinking... Our first aims is to provide -- all -- user a good > distribution. If all free alternatives were as functional as non-free, i > would not argue so. Debian is already 100% free software. non-free is not part of Debian. Again, why would debian need to give bandwidth and disk space for non-free packages? > Last but not least : regarding the progress of GFDL issue, if we remove > non-free we will have a "100% documentation less" distribution. It is > ridiculous. We will have software but no documentation... We will loose > ocaml-doc and a lot more. The GDFL issue is a different problem. I'm sure GNU would accept to host APT repos for such packages. > My position : keep non-free, stop the GFDL mess ( invariant in > documentation seems normal to me... ). > > Concerning the .el... As usual, we have the opinion of a "100% free" > supporter ( ie RMS ). I don't think it is a good position neither. To my > mind freedom, is also the choice of upstream to choose their licence... > ( you know : "free speech / free beer" ) I'm no even sure about arguments given. > I hope debian will not become : Debian "GNU only/Mach" ( after all, > Linux is not free -- from SCO point of view ;-) ). I hope we'll keep using Linux because there is no better alternative else than FreeBSD 5.x. -- Jérôme Marant
