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? >
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. > > 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 ). > > 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? > Acroread ! Try to use other alternatives but i realy see the difference. ( but alternatives are still usable ). > > 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? > Because to my mind Debian is not only for GNU People. There is user who are very to have the non-free alternatives. When a user will come to you asking : why acroread has been removed ? I use it everyday... > > 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. > Yep, one apt for this, one apt for that... Maybe we simply could have one apt per package .... It will prevent any licence issue ! > > 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. > Well, you should not understand my position. I know that i don't give strong enough arguments... I am not an expert, but i talk from a user point of view, to whom somebody said : well today you have this and that ( ie the choice ) and tomorrow you will only have this ( ie not the choice ). I will alway been in favor of having the choice. Regard Sylvain LE GALL
