Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > We'll be better able to produce such procedures when we actually know > what the circumstances are when non-free software becomes rare and > unusual in the world. We're so far off that now, anyone who claims to > be able to predict what circumstances are likely to bring that about is > kidding themselves.
We have seen moribund packages in non-free; we've seen packages like netscape which persisted for a long time despite free alternatives. So I'm wondering if there is a compromise position in which non-free stays around, but only for packages which are necessary, etc., and that the judgment of necessity is made by someone other than just the maintainer alone. Thomas
