On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:23:01PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > >[...] I don't think that would be any better morally than a > >commercial firm's decision to abandon support for a product which was > >not sufficiently profitable. > Would anyone argue that orphaning or deleting individual packages was > immoral? That happens already.
Removing packages that aren't being looked after with the maintainer's approval is a different matter to removing packages that are being maintained, that the maintainer would like to continue maintaining. > >Any user who doesn't like > >non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list. > Are developers who will not agree to use non-free blocked from jobs > where they ought to deal with it? Are there such jobs? None that I know of. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
