Re: Removing non-free - reality check.
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:57:42PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:05:36PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Benedikt Eric Heinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I wrote before, while I DO appreciate people like you trying to
> > > > "cleanse" Debian from anything not entirely free, I also DO
> > > > appreciate having access to debian-ready non-free software if I can
> > > > agree with the license tied to that software.
> > >
> > > I wonder, would perhaps a better compramise be to require for
> > > non-free that apt come up and inform the user of the license and ask
> > > them if they agree before installing it?
> > > Perhaps w/ a flag that experianced users (who have already
> > > looked over the license and know what they're getting into) can use
> > > to turn it off?
> > > This retains the control and makes users much more aware that
> > > the software they are installing is non-free...
> >
> > No, you're missing the point.
> >
> > The object of this GR is to appease the people who point at Debian and say
> > "look, they're hypocrites! They say they're free but they distribute
> > non-free software!" (I.E. the rabid extremists)
> >
> > your solution doesn't address this.
>
> I don't have an interest in appeaseing such people. I have an
> interest in accomadating those who are not at that extreme but feel that
> it would be good to do something. If a compramise isn't made then the
> extremists may get their way because those who are not so extreme would
> go that way just to have something be done.
I don't have an interest in accomodating them either -- I think that to say
"Free Software isn't worth our time unless it meets OUR EXACT definition of
'free'" is not the right statement to make.
However, the proponents of this measure are not looking to compromise -- they
have been given several opportunities so far and haven't taken anyone up on
it.
--Adam
Reply to: