> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:44:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:19:51PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > I think it has something to do with fonts being non-free. > > > > Thank you. > > > > If that is the reason why this is bad, then your statement "there are > > always more non-free packages to be uploaded" isn't something that's > > a flaw in our choice to distribute them. Instead, it's a criticism > > of people licensing those packages in a fashion which don't meet our > > guidelines.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:04:58PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > I'm not quite sure I follow... I said that just to point out that, at > any given time, non-free will contain software that someone finds vital. > I merely say that because I don't think the "just re-implement > everything as Free Software" argument holds any water. What, specifically, do you mean by this not holding any water statement? I can think of several mutually contradictory interpretations, some I think are false, some I think are true but irrelevant to the issue of getting rid of non free. > > Also, you seem to have overlooked one of my questions: > > > > > > > Perhaps a logical place to start is, effective immediately, completely > > > > > and totally ban the introduction of any new package into non-free. > > > > > > > > And your basis for this is the document of which the DFSG is part of? > > My apologies; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here. Can > you rephrase? I'm asking you what your basis for your drive to get rid of non-free is. If your rationale is "because it doesn't comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines", I'm rejecting that because the social contract and the DFSG were written as a single document, with DFSG being the definition of "Free" used in the rest of the document. -- Raul
