On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think > > are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ? > > It might or might not happen that way. I believe that non-free should > be removed from Debian regardless. I've told you my reasons.
Ok, thanks for confirming this. > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea. > > Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a ^^^^^^^ Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps) have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers. > reason why it's good. No, but it is nice to distinuguish the two things in the argumentation for the removal of non-free. And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive, even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably) signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for imaginary gain. Friendly, Sven Luther
