> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be > > > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of > > > anything I'd rather do than keep non-free]". > > > > That's probably because you've ignored all of the "what problem is it > > that we're trying to solve?" content.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:41:01PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > IMHO, the problem is already solved, that's why we have this poll in the > first place. > > The problem that lead to the inclusion of non-free on the Debian servers > was as follows: 'We'd like to have a full Free System, but some key > modules are not there yet. That's why keep this non-free software on our > servers for as long as needed.' > > Now, many years later, apparently a lot of Developers think that the > problem has been solved and we do not absolutely need to have non-free > on our servers. A lot disagree with this, of course. That's why we have > this poll, to find out who has the majority. This isn't a poll, it's a proposed amendment to the social contract. That said, non-free includes font support for a number of countries, quite a bit of documentation which is not in main, and a variety of obscure communications and document-handling utilities. Why should it even matter that this isn't important to some developers? And non-free includes games -- when has "importance" ever been an issue in that context? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
