On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:39:08AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hello, > > > > I don't know if you are aware of that, but a discussion has been raging > > on debian-vote about the removal of non-free from our archive, our BTS, > > and so on. > > > > I have been involved in it (even proposed a GR ammendment, altough it > > was a bit 'bancal'), and also since i am involved with non-free as DD (i > > maintain the unicorn ADSL modem drivers) and as user (i need lha, but > > also also because of ocaml-doc and ocaml-books). > > > > Since the debian-ocaml team is involved with 3 packages in non-free, i > > would like to hear about your/our position on this issue (well, and > > eventually second the anti-non-free removal if you feel like this). I > > have also sent a small mention about this to the caml team this morning, > > in marge of an email concerning the bug report : > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227159 > > > > About a QPLed caml-types.el from Damien Doligez. The debian-legal > > response to my request on this bug report has been less than thrilling > > (basically arguig that it would be polite to RMS not to distribute > > non-GPL compatible .el files :/). > > > > So, what is our position on this, both individually and as a group ? > > I'm in favour of the entire removal of non-free.
Ok, i thought that you would think so. Please everybody, this is not a place for discussing this issue, or we will have a huge thread on it which is maybe not the place here. I just wanted to know how we all stand on this. > Please note that my view on this was different fex years ago. At that > moment, the only existing working web browser was Netscape, PDFs couldn't > be seen without acroread. Yep. Friendly, Sven Luther
