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