Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:15:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:02:37PM -0500, Adam Rogoyski wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > The Debian project is now *required* by the DFSG to *package* and
> > > *distribute* non-free software? (As opposed to, say, allowing people
> > > to run non-free software on Debian machines, but not provide them.)
> > > So it is *logically inconsistent* for us to even *consider* not
> > > distributing non-free software?
> >
> > Not required, though we have commited to it, for very practical
> > reasons.
>
> I am committed to providing non-free software? Hogwash!
so ignore non-free. you don't have to dirty yourself with it if you
don't want to. be as pure as you like, but don't force your "morality"
on everyone else.
> Non-free is a concession, not a commitment;
bullshit. we made a promise (i.e. a commitment) to support our end-users in
their use of non-free software, and part of that promise was to provide
infrastructure and resources for non-free.
justify it to yourself any way you like, but the fact remains that john's
proposal is a breaking of that promise.
> Is it no longer necessary? That, I expect, will be decided by vote
> very soon.
no, necessity can not be decided by vote. need is not subject to any
democratic process.
what may be decided by vote very soon is whether we will break our word
and fuck over our users or not.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: