> The question isn't _what_ it's about, but what the point of it is -- > what the goal is, what the achievement will be, what the aim is, _why_ > this is worth doing.
[snip] > Note that many of the packages in non-free include their source > code. Indeed, many of the packages in non-free are considered "free" > by their authors, just not by Debian. In a similar fashion, the FSF > considers GFDL-licensed documentation "free", while Debian doesn't. > To me, it's worth doing because of your last sentence. We (the Debian project) should concentrate our resources on software that is DFSG free. Any individual developer can work on whatever they want, of course, including setting up servers that serve non-free. If our mirrors want to carry non-free, that's fine as well. I agree with the others that recently my dependence on non-free software has lessened, which is what makes this practical now when it did not used to be. All in all there is little practical consequence of this proposal, IMHO. (Hence the confusion.) It's more about philosophy. Consider that many people outside the project consider Debian to be the only morally "pure" (i.e. not motivated by commercial gain) distribution. In that light, my opinion is that living by our own standards (specifically the DFSG) as a project "just makes sense." My $0.02, Dale -- Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc. Senior Computer Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cliftonlabs.com pgp key available
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
