I sent the poor guy a link to my bashrc with how to compile debian binary and source packages then noone has to feel bad :-)
but true, constructive feedback is much better than flaming just to flame I bet most of us have tried running non-free at some time, and seen several reasons, i.e. adobe flash plugin or nonfree wifi firmware it is a good idea to urge people to reconsider adding non-free binaries though I think. maybe that should be in the wiki? (add to clause 5?) there might be a few number of reasons like he says that source cannot be released I just wouldn't urge him to add it to any pub repos unless it was very used software. having a too large non-free repos is not a good thing IMO. distributing packages offline/directly to customers is still possible even if it isn't in the repos. On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, Philip Hands wrote: > Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > > Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes: > > > >> On 9 October 2014 09:03, Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > >> > >> > On that point: It is in poor taste to declare up front that you have > >> > no intention of helping the free software community (which is what > >> > it means to release proprietary software), and then in the same > >> > message ask that same community for help in doing this. > >> > > >> > >> It is possible to release the source to your packaging as open source > >> with instructions on how to download the proprietary code and create > >> the Debian packages. > > > > Assisting someone to install proprietary software is not helping the > > *free software* community. > > > > It may be helping some other community, but not the community of users > > making an expressly free operating system. This person was specifically > > asking the community of a free software operating system for help in > > distributing non-free software. That's what I'm pointing out is in poor > > taste. > > Given that Debian Developers as a body have agreed to abide by the Social > Contract[1], clause 5 of which includes: > > Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support > their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as > our bug tracking system and mailing lists). > > it's pretty childish to harangue people for asking how best to use the > infrastructure we provide for exactly this purpose. > > Of course, you're not the first to think that there's something wrong > with clause 5. We've had two GRs attempting to change that. The second > of which[2] achieved the opposite by attracting a large majority in > favour of the reaffirmation of clause 5. > > It seems very impolite to use this as an excuse to attack newcomers. > > You don't have to stay here if that makes you unhappy, but if you do > stay I suggest that you stop whining about it. > > Cheers, Phil. > > [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract > [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 > -- > |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. > |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ > |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141009134627.ga21...@rlogin.dk
