On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote: > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The reason seems to be completely political. There are no > > technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may > > not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and > > a solid reason to make such a change. The creators apparently felt > > there was reason for non-free to exist. Non-free is clearly beneficial > > to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it. > > As I have said before, I have not yet decided what my position > will be on this GR when it comes to a vote. I do object to > misstatements on either side of the issue. > > The creators apparently did _not_ feel there was reason for > non-free to exist. In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that > Debian would be distributed by The Free Software Foundation. This > would effectively prevent a non-free section.
Erm, uhm, so where did it come from? :) What about section 5 of the social contract? Stephen