On 10/04/2012 12:22 PM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
Yes, that's why I prefer the separation of free and non-free repos.
IMHO opinion it is easier to have non-free visually out of the way for
the FOSS enthousiasts and it's just one click (actually 2 including
non-free/updates) for the users who want it all.
Furthermore there is another reason to keep the repos separated: it is
Mageias written intention to support and advocate FOSS. Separating
non-free and FOSS is a visible demonstration of this intention. Mixing
both in the same repo is the opposite.
As you said earlier, it's not black and white, but shades of gray.
We already choose to do a lot of stuff that is counter to FOSS (LiveCD,
having nonfree to begin with, etc.), and that's all done to make a
distro that serves FOSS and not-so-FOSS (I won't say non-FOSS here) alike.
From the various threads in this ML over the course of the last year,
there seems to be consensus to expand our non-FOSS footprint in the
interest of usability as long as we still make FOSS possible for those
who want it.
Once you start mixing for pragmatic reasons, the basis for future
decisions becomes pragmatic rather than political.
Witness your own vote here for "tainted" over "nonfree", because you
find more value in keeping nonfree untainted than you do in keeping
tainted free. It's all a matter of degree.
