On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed > but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed > then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic) > > * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 11:32]: > > * Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]: > >> Which option is: "Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org > >> (with infrastructure) and remove it then."? I guess many are missing > >> this, and I just hope this wasn't forgotten. > > > > The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental > > decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. > > But that next step influences if I am for or against. If it isn't sure > that the next step (moving it to nonfree.org instead of erasing it from > earths surface completely) will be made I am fully *against* the GR. And > I guess I am not the only one. This is a needed precondition for some of > us, I am quite confident that I am not the only one.
Just vote for keeping non-free then. Once non-free.org has been created, and has been proved to be a working replacement of non-free in the debian archive, meeting all the needs of the non-free maintainers and users, i don't see how our promise to keep non-free will stop us from moving to this new infrastructure. This is the difference between showing the code, and enforcing it by its merit, over trying to force others to implement it. Also, even if the move will not be done automatically, nothing is stopping you or others to have a new vote once non-free.org is fully functional. Speaking about a fictional entity nobody really as interest in working on, and which is potentially wastefull of debian resources, is somewhat unhonest and problematic though. Friendly, Sven Luther
