On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:24:25PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 +0000 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > >>On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th > >>>December. > >> > >>elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. > >>I > >>filed bug #221761 after a debian-legal discussion pointed it out. > > > >And ? The fact that it previously was in non-free but is now in main > >doesn't count ? > > Was it? It's not now in main. The "initial upload" elfutils upload was > to main in July 2003 (version 0.84-1). It was removed from main on 9th > December (bug 221761). When was it in non-free? > > >[...] The packages are not more actively > >removed, because nobody, including the remove non-free proponent, care > >enough about it. > > As far as I can tell, Andrew Suffield and others are working as much > as they can on reducing non-free through analysing licences and > explaining the DFSG in that context. I doubt you have any reason to > accuse them of not caring enough.
Yeah, they care only about licencing, and conflictive relationship with upstream, not about : 1) finding and strengthening free alternative. 2) having constructive discussion with upstream if relicencing is possible. 3) actually asking for removal of obsolet non-free stuff. If a non-free maintainer is MIA or doesn't care anymore, who do you think will ask for its removal ? And i am sure with all the time lost in this thread, at least one non-free software could have been fully reimplemented from scratch in a free way, don't you think ? Friendly, Sven Luther