Re: Bug#181028: cdrecord: promotes non-free software
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 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.
I'd like to reply to this point to say that I agree almost entirely.
(I'm not reluctant to package non-free software if benefits our users.)
However, I don't think see the cdrecord "advertisement" as a pragmatic
application of this "DFSG response" that we see so commonly on the lists.
Whether or not we evangelize free software is not the question - of course
we do - but where do we draw the line between promoting free software and
actively taking measures to prevent the promotion any non-free software?
Your stance, as I understand it, puts us on a slippery slope. Who
sponsors Bdale's DPL trips? What's that http://www.deqo.com/ link at the
bottom of Ben's .sig? (Once again, Ben, no personal affront intended, it
just seems like a good example.) AFAICT, these are advertisements for
"non-free" ventures being made within the realm of Debian. If you take a
look at http://www.debian.org/partners/ you'll see that we openly
advertise for those who provide assistance to Debian. I find that
cdrecord's author also provides assistance to Debian.
Personally, I'm not the least bit bothered by this sort of advertisement,
because the contributions of these people and organizations are net
positive. IMO, it's a simple fact of life that everyone here has
"non-free" associations, and those who would claim they don't are either
too naive or self-righteous to be able to make the distinction.
However, if you take a look at the "Firewall Informer" thread on
debian-security, we have an out-and-out advertisement for commercial
software being made by a company that, I'm fairly certain, does *not*
contribute to Debian either through software or monetary donations. In
that case, the distinction is very clear, and I have no qualms about
sending Blade Software a bill for using Debian as an advertising medium
for a purely non-free endeavor.
So in summary, I think the matter is a difference of opinion is about
where we can throw stones without danger of hypocrisy. As an aside, out
of deference to Ben, I wasn't aware of the bad blood in the history of the
relationship with the upstream. It's easy to sit here and talk about what
should or shouldn't happen in a given situation, but in real life, such
matters do make a difference.
Cheers,
tony
tony@mancill.com | An ounce of perception,
http://www.debian.org | a pound of obscure...
| (Peart)
Reply to: