On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:47:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, there is also the problematic question of documentation. It pains > > me to see that i was forced to remove the ocaml-doc package from the > > debian distribution and into non-free, while at the same time loads of > > non-free documentation still stands in main. So, i would oppose the > > removal of non-free documentation until this whole mess is cleared, not > > before a few month as i have been lead to understand. > > I think the non-free documentation is on its way out of main as we
Out of main and into ? And latest news report on this spoke of at least 6 more month. > speak, and there is hope of resolving the impasse with the FSF. I do > not object to transition periods and things taking time to > accomplish. Was there any hope that the ocaml-doc documentation would > become free? There may be, i have not forced the issue in the past, as i am not maintaining the package and have been busy with other issues. I think they don't quite like to free it, but i have enough contact with upstream that i might relaunch the issue, and have some hope of there being something happening. My effort has currently been on the XFree86 licence issue and on this time waster here. > I do not object to the notion that there might be room in Debian for a > non-free archive which included things like documentation and drivers > for closed hardware, but the pro-non-free crowd didn't see fit to > propose any such compromises. The only resolution you all came up > with was the "reaffirm non-free" which is, well, awful in my opinion. Well, the problem here is where you draw the line. what is acceptable in non-free and what is not. I would prefer a case by case analysis. Also, i think you forgot my own proposal, which was then gone into Raul's one, and later abandoned in the many iterations thereof. I would gladly have seen a ballot of the like of : A) drop non-free, do not create non-free.org, stop any relationship with non-free related .debs. B) drop non-free and create non-free.org C) keep non-free, but take a more active hand in examining and removing stuff from non-free. D) keep non-free. E) Further discussion. And for your info, i would probably have voted : CAEDB Friendly, Sven Luther
