If I understand correctly, the idea here is that including a wrapper that allows a user to access non-free software is somehow a bad thing. However, if you don't allow the wrapper users are NOT able to access the non-free software. This seems to infringe on the user's right to choose and therefore is a suppression of freedom.
Just a thought. Bob Søren Hauberg wrote: > tor, 17 11 2011 kl. 19:35 +0000, skrev Carnë Draug: > >> My personal opinion is to remove the non-free section. >> > I agree with you on this point. We should not be encouraging the use of > non-free libraries. Consider the situation where a package depends on > another package that in turn depends on a non-free library. If we > silently accept non-free libraries then we might end up with an entire > ecosystem that depends on this libraries. > > Søren > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > _______________________________________________ > Octave-dev mailing list > Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
