On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:02:43PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:48:41AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > 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?
Hey, i said let's not start a non-free flamewar on debian-ocaml-maint. > Well, it could be a good alternative. But it won't be distributed with > CD... And some people don't have access to online apt repository. Non-free cannot go on CDs anyway. > > > 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. > > ... Indeed... Here is the problem ( but it is only my point of view ). > > > Example? > > Acroread ! Try to use other alternatives but i realy see the difference. Bad example too, since acroread is no more in non-free, because adobe's licence prohibit to have it beside pdflatex for example. Good examples include the ocaml documentation, but also the unicorn ADSL modem i maintain, or the nvidia 3D drivers. Friendly, Sven Luther
