On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's > size in the past.
Size of non-free (by source package) in:
bo - 69
hamm - 183
slink - 225
potato - 220
woody - 208
sarge - 181
sid - 193
But personally, I don't think reducing the size of non-free is a goal.
If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
unfortunately we can't give you the source, but we'd be happy for you
to distribute it -- it might make Wine work better, eg", then I think
that'd be great and useful, even if it increases the size of non-free
by a gigabyte and (somehow) increases the number of packages in there
by tenfold.
Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
non-free aids in that.
Not being able to modify software sucks. Not being able to distribute
software sucks too though; whether it's upstream's choice or ours.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
