On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:03:41PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-03-04 18:30:48 +0000 Remi Vanicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Fortunately, there is enough time to challenge more people forgetting > >that some of our user need non-free driver to install some hardware on > >their computer, and that without a non-free replacement, we are > >forgetting them and their need. Fortunately. > > I'm not forgetting the emails to which you refer. I'm just very laggy. > > I'd say those users need better hardware rather than non-free drivers.
Well, this would be problematic for people trying to install debian on preexistant hardware, or on assorted donated stuff or other older hardware, don't you think. > It also doesn't say anything about whether they need non-free to be > hosted by debian. The relative popularity of the non-debian-hosted > java packages suggests not. Sure, but please tell me, if we are going to move non-free stuff to non-free.org, exactly how will that change anything over the current situation in regard with packages with problematic licences ? Apart from the fact that the global cost to debian developers and infrastructure may be higher that is. I think i would rather vote for completely removing non-free and forgetting about the packages, over such a smoke and mirror measure which would be to move the packages to another server, and continue business as usual. Friendly, Sven Luther
