Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: >> Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: >> > Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have >> > access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These >> > packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official >> > Debian infrastructure. >> >> Note the _have to_ above. >> Who will do this? > >Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project! Anyway, >since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps >non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those >archives and the bug tracking system?
That isn't the main argument of the GR's supporters, and money is not the issue. Maintaining packages is a miniscule load compared to maintaining an archive, a bug tracking system, and so on. One of the people who does that for Debian now indicated that he thought it would take about a month to set up and a couple of days a week thereafter. This is not something that even skilled maintainers should consider lightly. >Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things >themselves can pay money to a consultant. If there is enough interest, >they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If >users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should >everyone expect a free lunch? *sigh* They have one now. Why shouldn't they? Debian's free-beer as well as free-speech. >> > Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. >> >> Insider information? What makes you say this? >> Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license? > >Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but: >the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since, >KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant >unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the >code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that >debate. No, you've missed the fact that, although both are DFSG-free in themselves, the GPL and the QPL are incompatible, and that the KDE people have refused to add the exception to the GPL that would make it legally distributable *at all*. This has been gone over *many* times, and this probably isn't the place for that debate; there was a recent flamewar on Slashdot if you want an introduction to it. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
