> >> the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software; > >> > >> many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide, > >> freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or > >> unable to provide their code freely to the public; > > > > Two issues here: morality, and equitablity. > > > > [*] Morality: can you provide any reference to this moral code? > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 06:58:46PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > I refer to individual moral codes in that statement. The project, of > course, does not have one. > > One such moral code that is widely known (though not of a developer) is > as > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved? > > > > [*] Equitability: what is the unfairness, specifically > > See above. What, specifically is the unfairness? > >> the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the > >> founding of the project; and > > > > How do you measure this? > > I do not have a quantitative measurement of this. I do notice, from > personal experience, that my reliance on non-free software has > lessened. For example, first with more able versions of konqueror, then > with Mozilla). For example, with PNG support in all major browsers, and > now with the GIF patent expiring. With Ogg Vorbis over MP3, and there > now even being several portable Vorbis players. With GCC's > ever-improving PowerPC support. With MySQL and PostgreSQL being able to > do what I used to have to use Oracle, etc. for. Ok, I'm glad that you are less dependant on non-free than you used to be. > >> outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated > >> software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror > >> network: > > > > I don't know what you're talking about here -- perhaps you should > > ennumerate these groups. > > http://www.apt-get.org/ What about BTS? -- Raul
