Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as > > a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you > > wouldn't be complaining so much. > > Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or > whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of > non-free will be real though, and a real pain.
It's not cosmetic, it's practical. And it's hardly fictitious. One of the two aims I want is to accomplish is to have this stuff no longer supported on Debian resources. That's hardly cosmetic; it's a significant thing. And it's hardly fictitious. > If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis > to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to > achieve that. Of course I want to get rid of non-free software eventually, and I think the mission of Debian is a good way to make progress towards that goal. I believe that this resolution will contribute, and that the coddling of non-free software has *never* helped in the production of free software. > Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it. I do care about your experience, but I disagree with the lessons you draw from it. You are dishonest when you (continually) tell me what I care about, despite my asking you not to guess, and despite my having said so a number of times. > Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like > emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes. Sure. When we must use non-free software to develop free software, it's ok to do so. But the FSF never distributed that non-free software we were using, we didn't help support and develop it as part of our project, and we dropped it as soon as we possibly could. Thomas
