Non-free packages

Dusty · 2004-10-28 18:59:00

Mr Green wrote:

what are going on about :?

Shut up you! Didn't I tell you to go try ensmer? :-P

Somebody tell me to get to work, I shouldn't be wasting my time here today...

Dusty

sweiss · 2004-10-29 12:54:02

rehcra wrote:

Haakon wrote:
I don't want ArchLinux to be a "pragmatic" distro -- I want it as free as possible, and I want to spread awareness. But more than that, I want freedom of choice as much as the rest of you do. As part of that freedom, however, I want to make it easy to choose free software when choice exists, and to choose not to use anything when only proprietary alternatives exist. This is a personal thing for me, and I don't want to push it on everybody, but I want there to be mechanisms in place that excludes proprietary software if I should want that. I have suggested how the License field can be used for this, or how division into repositories can be used for this. I think this reasoning is fair and doesn't get in anybody's way. I hope the derogatory zealotry elsewhere in this thread does not put this reasoning in a bad light -- I, nor anybody else who through years of consideration believe software freedom is right for them, want anything to do with those mindless zealots who in effect works against us all. Let's hope they grow up. :-)
I reread the whole topic and came with the following conlusions:
Responders who don't like to use closed software (Haakon (cited above), me, even Zeppelin) seem to be concerned with freedom. When you read all their posts, you will see that they don't intend to impose anything on anybody (they did make some personal insults; but this is irrelevant).
For example, every time I spoke about dependencies I meant that they should be reduced so that user has more freedom in chosing whatever software she wants.
On the other hand, the other kind of people (skoal, paranoos, dusty) seems to be trying to impose using closed source software on others. When I describe my point of view about how packages should be built, the only response from them I get from them is "use ABS".
This makes me think. Perhaps various types of freedom are somehow interconnected, and those who are against one kind of freedom are against the freedom as a whole.
To phrakture: you refered to the previous post only? You didn't address your words clearly; where they directed at me?
Haakon wrote:
skoal wrote:
How many of you ideological open source "weenies" have illegal downloads of Transgaming's WineX, instead of just using Wine? Where's your conviction now?
(...)
I'm sorry you hate software freedom, but I somehow doubt Arch would be worse off without you.
I really think Haakon's words are justified by what skoal said.
Btw. seems Mr Green is my friend. Could you, Mr Green, express your point of view on the subject of closed source dependencies?

Hmm, what if a user isn't sure of what he needs (for example how will one know he need extra codecs to make mplayer work with more formats)?

I don't think anyone is imposing anything here. The number of closed source packages is extremely minimal, and as a free software advocate I suppose you know exactly which packages you don't want to have installed. So until there's something being done with the license field, using IgnorePkg should suffice.

Arch Linux

#101 2004-10-28 18:59:00

Re: Non-free packages

#102 2004-10-29 12:54:02

Re: Non-free packages

Board footer