On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that > > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's > > size in the past. > > Well, didn't we remove all the netscape crap and adobe acrobat reader > for example ?
That was because of security problems, not because Free alternatives existed (and those alternatives existed *for years*, at least in the case of netscape) > And the fact that we are even having this discussion is a proof that you > are wrong. Ah :) > Did not many of the 'remove non-free' camp claim that, yes, they used > to use non-free in the past, and no, they didn't think we should > remove non-free 5 years ago, since back then they were using some of > the software in it, for which they did find free replacement today ? > (Not to tell the hypocricy of it all, since they needed non-free back > then, it was ok to keep it, but since now they don't have use of the > software in it, let's get rid of it, not withstanding the fact that > maybe other folk care about not yet liberated packages). I don't remember people say that, could you perhaps come up with quotes? On the other hand, 'they' repeatedly said, that while they were using non-free 5 years ago, they nevertheless opted for its removal. > > And the repeated proposals by Raul sure give me the impression that the > > 'keep non-free proponents' want to change the Social Contract. > > And the actual change we are speaking about, which reaffirms our > commitment to distribute non-free, adds an additional restriction in the > fact that it encourages to provides alternatives and the other stuff i > have mentioned, which even for the 'remove non-free' camp should be a > win over the status quo. What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging alternatives would *not* be the status quo? Michael
