Throwing out random thoughts about the whole non-free imbraglio
Branden said:
>There's always[1] going to be some new non-free thing for which there
>isn't yet a free replacement. xpdf-japanese et al. didn't exist in 1997
So you admit that the original motivation for non-free is *still valid*!
>when we adopted the Social Contract, as far as I know. So I don't see
>non-free trailing off in use, but instead growing, and the number of
>source packages in unstable over the years bears this out (see my
>discussion with Jim Penny elsewhere in this list).
No, it doesn't, as pretty much everyone else who looked at the numbers
agrees.
What has happened is that the number of non-free source packages has
*stabilized* since slink; this is because old non-free packages are replaced
with new free alternatives *and* new non-free packages are introduced which
perform functions previously unavailable. These two processes have generally
been balancing each other out, although there's no guarantee they will
continue to.
>[1] or, at least, for as far in the future as *my* crystal ball sees
Yep... as far in the future as *I* can see, the process I described in the
previous paragraph will keep happening. It will only stop when *everyone in
the world* appreciates the value of DFSG-free software. Why? Because people
writing software in *new areas* are the least likely to understand the free
software movement, even if they support it once they understand it. These
are people we want to co-opt, not drive away.
---
There's a real complaint: confused users and developers think that 'non-free'
is part of the Debian distribution. How to solve this without slaying
non-free? Here are some ideas, in increasing degree of drasticness.
* Have the Debian project introduce a new server called something like
"third-party.debian.org" to host non-free. Emphasize that these packages are
*not* part of the distribution by making users select this server separately
in their apt sources list.
* Have non-free operate independently of the release structure. To the user,
there is only one non-free distribution, the "third-party non-free packages"
distribution, which they must add to whichever Debian distribution they use.
If different package versions are needed for stable and unstable due to, for
instance, library linking issues, they'll need to have different names (like
the gcc2.95, gcc3.0, gcc3.2 business). This might be too radical, but would
clearly differentiate between Debian and "non-free".
* Abandon non-free entirely, but have SPI sponsor a apt-gettable server
(third-party.debian.org) for third-party developers to put .deb packages on.
Emphasize that this is merely a hosting service and that Debian does not
track or maintain any of these, and merely tries to keep the infrastructure
from breaking. Debian maintainers of non-free packages they really care
about can then put them there. In contrast to the proposed GR as is, this
would at least eliminate the feeling (which I see a lot) that the only .debs
in existence are part of the Debian distribution, and that if it's not
distributed and maintained by Debian you have to use plain old tar.gz. The
problem is the potentially infinite number of .debs people will want to
distribute once Debian takes over the world. :-) So in essence this would
eliminate non-free *and* give more support to non-free.
I'd be (very) happy with any or all of these (in particular, the third option
would be a positive improvement over the status quo); I wonder what Debian
developers who support non-free think of these ideas?
---
I think some of the trouble arises from the fact that many Debian developers
disagree about the correct interpretation of the DFSG when applied to
non-executables. "non-free" has actually acted as a safety valve for these
problems; the debatable non-executables can go in non-free without seriously
hampering the ability of those who consider them "free enough" to use them.
Perhaps it was inevitable that this question would come to a head sometime.
--Nathanael Nerode
Reply to: