Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Server != library. There is no linking. There is no requirement to use > >> it with a non-free server. > > James> Hello? No requirement? What, pray tell, does one do with TiK if one > James> doesn't connect to a server (non-free)? > > Theoretically, one does not provode the software to do > _anything_. You may look at it. You may feel inspired to write a free > server. You may take pleasure in the number of packages you have > installed.
Then, _why_ do we have contrib in the first place? If the software doesn't have to be functional/useful/whatever, why don't we just abandon contrib and stick all the free software which depends on non-free software to be in main? After all, you can look at it. You can feel inspired to write a free replacement for the non-free part. You can take pleasure in the number of packages you have installed. > Do we have the right to deprive users of choices just because > we see no reason to do stuff? Sounds a trifle draconian. `Deprive users of choices'? Come again? We're talking about putting something in contrib rather than main, not banning the program, hunting down the author and gutting him with a spoon. > James> I'd say the necessity to connect to the server before one > James> can do what the majority of users would do with TiK is a > James> requirement. > > Their choice. No, this is the point, it's not their choice. A user has no choice but to use a non-free server. Or do sweet FA with the software worth talking about. I didn't think Debian was in the business of promoting non-free software? ~~~~ Why is a requirement that is in a Depends line so much more binding that a requirement which isn't? It's still a requirement. -- James
