On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users > > have indicated that non-free is currently required. > > And that means us developing it, not us passing it off. > > Which part of that is not clear to you? > > The part where you insist that this clause is not in support of our goals > for totally free software is the part that I cannot agree with. And it > doesn't have anthing to do with a part being unclear. > > non-free (admittedly a misnomer) HAS promoted license changes that have > moved packages from non-free to the main disto. This IS the purpose of > this clause, and it DOES work, so why insist that we destroy a working > process simply because you don't understand that it does not conflict with > Debian ideals but only with your ideals (or your understanding of how this > clause effects your ideals)
I'm confused now. Was this message directed at me Dale? I'm in complete agreement and always have been. We need non-free and should continue to maintain it. I suppose Anthony's proposal to move its location to demote it a little. I do not support John's GR. As I said above, "We will be guided by the needs of our users," and our users have indicated that they still need non-free. So we need to keep maintaining it. > I say again: "Vote no to any modifications of the spirit of this document" Agreed completely. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
