On 2004-02-23 14:37:35 +0000 Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
IMO it will be decided by simple evolution. When everything that
users want
to
do can be done with software in main, then there won't be the
incentive for
developers to carry on maintaining packages in non-free.
I think you underestimate perversity. For some, the lack of incentive
for most will be sufficient incentive to continue non-free.
Perhaps that won't be the case and we will have to forcibly remove
non-free at
some point. At *this* point though, I don't consider that all of
_my_own_
needs are met from main, so I can't say that all of our users' needs
are.
The cut will come when there is a consensus that non-free is
undesirable. A position statement for the published status quo seems
to serve little purpose besides obstructing discussion.
It's very easy to simply say "so write Free alternatives".
I seldom say that. Usually, I ask people to encourage as well as
write. It is even easier to simply say "free software does not meet
all my needs", trivially rebuff all challenges and do nothing to
change that.
I saw it as a proposal of a statement made by the developer body.
So you disagree with the proposer's opinion that this should be an
amendment to the "drop" proposal? I remain confused about whether this
beast is fowl or mule and I am amazed that anyone seconds something so
ambiguous.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
