Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free > in some way.
This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section. > I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable > alternatives (not by closing my eyes and leaving those helpless, > that cannot), and the non-free things to draw as few labor as possible. Indeed. > I believe havinig non-free areas ourselves is the best > way to achieve this. Can you give any other reasons? I don't like the ones you give below. > It radically dicharges pressure to include or > leave anything non-free in Debian. Such pressure is irrelevant, unless you think there's a realistic chance of the basic "100% free software" pledge being changed as a result? > (And thus makes it easier to > apply pressure to change the licence). Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before? > And having it implemented as satallite gives us not only control which > things get in and to throw things out, but also makes sure it does > not draw labor to create alternative infrastructure. Indeed, but it has been suggested that we should use that control to throw it all out. I think that the time for that has come. It will save some mirror space and transfer, while any work likely to be done by the few non-free apologists who will persist ;-) is fairly minimal (set up a BTS, apt repository - what else?). I assume that only a reply to the Catholic part was supposed to be off-list, as this seems fairly on-topic. -- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging. How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
