I understand that.  If it isn't available from the website, at the very 
least it creates an obstacle to using it, and therefore is a suppression 
of freedom.  A nonfree (sub)repository is a perfect place to give users 
access to stuff that may be useful even though it doesn't meet the 
standards of "freedom".  I really can't see that there is any harm 
whatever.

Michele Martone wrote:
> On 20111117@13:44, Robert T. Short wrote:
>    
>> If I understand correctly, the idea here is that including a wrapper
>> that allows a user to access non-free software is somehow a bad thing.
>> However, if you don't allow the wrapper users are NOT able to access the
>> non-free software.  This seems to infringe on the user's right to choose
>> and therefore is a suppression of freedom.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Bob
>>      
> Bob, they were discussing whether to host the wrapper in the
> octave-forge repositories; not whether to allow or deny the wrapper
> use.
>
>
>
>    


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure 
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, 
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this 
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

Reply via email to