On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:03:36AM +0200, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > My position is that it should acceptable for a program in main to require > > a non-free service, or data, or whatever, as long as that program itself > > is free and running it doesn't compromise the freedom of the user. > > contrib should be for wrappers, downloaders etc. The policy uses the word > > "supplemental". > > If this is your position, then your position on the unrar scenario > should logically be that putting the non-free components on a server > somewhere is sufficient to allow unrar into main. If not, please > explain. Putting the non-free components on a server somewhere is so stupid I don't even want to think about that.
> >> Finally, for the third time, please explain your position on my > >> hypothetical > >> unrar-nonfree scenario. > > > > I don't have a position in that scenario because I don't intend to dig it > > and examine it. > > There is no need to dig and examine. Bas has provided all the context > that is necessary. Not really. > > I don't know why are you counting times unless you view this > > discussion as a battle between you and the world. > > I probably share your point of view rather than Bas', but the way you > represent it is a disservice. It makes you look silly and for some > reason unwilling to address Bas core argument. Sure, but the whole discussion is pointless and won't result in anything. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
