Re: Bug#181028: cdrecord: promotes non-free software
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.44.0302221003500.10984-100000@bach.mancill.van>,
>>>>> tony mancill <tony@mancill.com> writes:
Most of this message is targetted at the statements in the
post I am responding to; I am reserving my judgment on the larger
issue of ripping out advertizing from cdrecord, on which I have not
yet formed an opinion.
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Ben Collins wrote:
>> IMO, we should not be promoting non-free software, especially when
>> there is a free alternative. Just because Joerg wants to make a
>> buck doesn't mean we have to let Debian become an advertising
>> medium for him. He is using our distribution and our users to
>> promote a closed source product.
> Debian *is* an advertising medium for all kinds of things, both
> commercial and philosophical. This bug is merely an effort to
> espouse the submitter's philosophy over the interests of the person
> who did the real work, the upstream maintainer.
But Debian also has a socula contract, and that definitely
marks us in favour of DFSG free software. We may reluctantly package
some non-free software, but the fact that we evangelize free
software is never in doubt.
RANT>
> We (Debian) are using Joerg's software to our advantage, not the
> other way around.
No. The upstream authors are not doing us a favour; they
presumably want their free software to be widely used, and we
provide the service. No debt of gratitude exists that would cause us
to compromise the very foundation on which we are build, namely, our
social contract, and the DFSG.
> It's the tail wagging the dog when the distributor of software
> begins claiming that it offers more value than the software itself.
> Given the paticular nature of this piece of software, I'd say that
> Joerg has done more for Debian than Debian could ever do for him.
> Or maybe we should start distributing on DAT tapes...
I would much rather we drop _any_ piece of software from
Debian than compromise the social contract.
> But the most offensive thing about this type of statement is that
> it exhibits a tendency of Debian developers knowing better, and
> presuming that Debian users are too stupid to recognize an
> advertisement.
Rubbish. It is about debian developers trying to decide
whether they, collectively, feel comfotable with packaging some
software. Being included in debian is not a right, it is a
privilege
> P.S. I harbor no ill will towards anyone involed with this, so I
> hope that no one takes my rant as a personal attack. It's simply
> that, IMHO, there are much more important social and technical
> problems within Debian than a one-line advertisement. I don't
> dispute the fact that the license gives Debian the right to remove
> the advertisement, but rather whether removing the line is
> necessary.
I may not disagree with sentiment.
> We're simply encouraging software authors to reconsider how they
> license their software.
People are responsible for their actions. I am not going to
second guess what I think is right based on what someone may, in the
future, decide to do as a result.
manoj
--
We are not loved by our friends for what we are; rather, we are loved
in spite of what we are. Victor Hugo
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: