On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel > compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent > post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the > flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
Why, i found it a really reasonable post, which clearly stated the state of the actual content of non-free, and why it is a bad idea to remove non-free as a whole, as opposed to individual non-free programs. You have upto now simply refused to give specific examples, and didn't respond to me when i cited 3 cases i am concerned about, and which show well the actual status of non-free software. Also, the view that non-free is a stepping stone for freeing said software, you discard with ease, while i have had a particular example of a package i maintain, which started in non-free, and which, in discussion over the years with upstream has now be moved to main. Also, you speak of freedom, but you are trying to limit my own freedom to work on the software and packages i want, even if they are non-free for now. (Again, i have big hopes that someday they will be a free soft-ADSL library, which would permit my only non-free package to enter main, so please go ahead with your ideal, and code such a one for me, please. :)) Friendly, Sven Luther
