On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > glorious words. > > trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
Well then, it should be no problem to remove. > > If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only, > > that difference is practically non-existant. > > then they simply don't use that software. they are no worse off than they > would be if it didn't exist, while a number of people/orgs who are allowed > to use it ARE better off. > > your point seems to be that SOME can't use it, so NOBODY should. No. My point is that SOME can't use it; therefore Debian should not be in the business of providing a mirror network for it. > > Then you are confusing the "what should be allowed in main" argument with > > the > > "whether we should distribute things that are not allowed in main" argument. > > They are two distinct questions, and it seems to me that you are attempting > > to influence the second because your opinions on the first were not shared > > by > > a majority of Debian developers. > > huh? > > once again you accuse me of talking about main when i am talking about > non-free. That's a pointless distinction, since non-free is, by its very definition, "that which doesn't meet the requirements for main." > is this really the best that you can do? accuse anyone who is in favour of > keeping non-free of wanting to pollute main with non-free stuff? oooh! what a > scary bogeyman! You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need for me to make the accusation. -- John
