Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:48:40PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > When you know complain about the removed pine package, then you have two
> > direct solutions (beside the solution to make your own pine package and put
> > it on a derived distribution, as you are describing below):
>
> Why do you continue to avoid the question?
because I'm not in a position to tell you the answer. I'm not and was never
the maintainer of pine, and I never spoke with the upstream author. In fact,
I was never interested in pine at all. I just wanted to clarify a few
things.
> Debian has distributed Pine
> in non-free for about two years. As far as I can tell, Pine's license has
> not changed. It is Debian's POLICY towards that license that has changed.
I already tried to explain that Debian did not. It was a single maintainer
that choose not to continue distributing a binary version. You seem to be
overly nervous.
> THAT is what I want clarified. Pine is not a new package in the
> distribution nor is it in a new section of the distribution. Debian has
> had its policy for a long time. That is why the package has always been
> put in non-free.
Please bear in mind that doing it wrong in the past does not necessarily
mean to do it wrong in the future, too. Please don't take this as attack.
I do not know if distributing a binary version is wrong.
> > 1) You can ask the maintainer of the package why he made this decision.
> > 2) You can ask the upstream authors to clarify/change the license.
> >
> > I think ranting on a public list instead is not very kind.
>
> Then will someone please answer the question? Shooting the messager does
> not fix the problem. All I want is an clear answer to the simply question:
> Why did Debian change their interpretation?
Debian did not. The maintainer did. Could you please be so kind and look
again at suggestion 1) above? I'm sure he has valid reasons for his
decision.
> > Then you may want to put work into easier use of Debian (you say that you
> > are actually doing so, I read below). I remember that you do great things on
> > debian-user, asking questions etc. This is the way to go. You can even put a
> > deb package of pine somewhere on ftp you own.
>
> I have been an advocate of Debian in many forums for a long time. I
> started using it when it was a.out. I have some packages locally that I
> have built for my own use that differ from Debian's and I also get
> packages from fuller.edu (like gated) that Debian does not have. I am a
> Unix sysadmin by profession (mostly Solaris which is another reason I use
> Debian ... I like the init structure) and know what it is like to have to
> continually respond to requests to configure things for users. I do not
> look at default items from the point of view on MY useage as much as I do
> having to maintain it. If I have a few dozen users using text email, I am
> sure I do not want mutt because I am going to spend a great deal of time
> configuring it for them.
I'm sure you will do a great job providing them a self-build and
pre-configured pine package.
> > But trying to push a volunteer (or even a group) in the direction you like
> > will just not work.
>
> No! I am trying to put the group BACK where it always HAS been. I do not
> want to change its direction, I see it already changing and I am trying to
> put it BACK on course. I see a general change in attitude on the part of
> the developers that I think is incorrect and potentially damaging and want
> to try to correct it if possible. I agreed with what the policy always
> had been before but I don't know if I agree with it now because nobody
> will spell out what that policy IS. Please do not spout off what it says
> in the docs, it has said that all along. I want to understand why,
> suddenly, licenses mean different things than they have in the past. Same
> license, same debian policy ... different interpretation. Why? What
> potential does that have for the rest of non-free?
It seems as you try to blow this single case up to a problem of the whole
distribution. I think you are wrong. I do not see the group going in this
direction.
> > To be more concrete: If the maintainer of a package decides that it is too
> > high risk to put a package in non-free because of the copyright, he is free
> > doing so. I did not speak with either the maintainer nor with the upstream
> > authors about this issue, so I'll not impose any judgement on either.
>
> Please answer the question. Pine has had that same license nearly
> forever. Debian has had the same policy. Pine was free-enough to go in
> non-free as a binary for a long time. Suddenly it is not. Why.
Again, please ask the maintainer of the package. I can't and will not speak
up for him (but see my personal opinion below).
> > There are two issues: One issue is the copyright (the procedure you
> > describe above may work for some time), the other is that there has to be a
> > volunteer to do it --- no volunteer, no package.
>
> Wait, I missed something .. are you saying that Pine is without a
> maintainer? Or are you saying that the maintainer changed and the new
> maintainer inpterprets the license differently than the old one?
I'm not saying either of one. I'm saying that a maintainer has right to
refuse to infringe copyright law.
> If that
> is the case we can hope to possibly convince the new maintainer that he is
> full of hooey and put the binary back.
I wish you good luck doing so.
> I think that would make Debian the
> only major distribution that does not have a Pine binary package.
My opinion: I wouldn't care.
In general: We are also missing other not-even-non-free non-free stuff.
Let's face reality: Quite a lot people in Debian do not have much interest
in maintaining software they can't even change and distribute. There are
exceptions.
> > You already have the reassurance, as you know the dfsg and other documents.
> > Those define the official position of Debian. The rest is done on a
> > voluntarily base. "Debian" as a whole can't force anyone to mainatin a
> > package! If pine is so important to you, that you would even make the effort
> > packaging it, despite the possibly danger of having to remove it from the
> > archive at some time, I think you are welcome to do so. But the current
> > maintainer is free to not spent his time on it.
>
> But Debian has also maintained a non-free portion for stuff that does not
> meet the condifitions of the dfsg.
> Are you saying that Debian is going to
> drop non-free and contrib? I am baffled.
You are confused. Please don't lay words in my mouth. I never said that.
> "The danger of having to remove
> it"? Huh? You seem confused. main is guaranteed to be 100% free.
> Non-free is guaranteed to be 100% non-free. I accepted that when I browse
> in the non-free archive.
Please stop spreading FUD around. Or do you want to troll me?
Copyright can change. And you said yourself that we can only distribute pine
as binary as long as we don't make changes. At some point, we probably have
to do changes, and from that point pine would be so non-free that we can't
even distribute it. Do you understand me now? This is what I meant by "The
danger of having to remove it".
> > > and not on playing politics to build a cross on which to crucify it.
> >
> > You are always speaking of "Debian", but it is just a bunch of people. The
> > "interest" of Debian is the sum of the interest of the people. Most people
> > prefer to work on free software, but many people also spent their time on
> > non-free packages, which is just as fine
> >
> > Your analogy with the cross is overly extreme. Please keep calm.
>
> I think we are loosing focus here. The point is that Pine is one of the
> most popular Unix applications in the world.
And Microsoft Windows is one of the most popular operating systems in the
world. Sorry for having to say that, but its true.
> Pico is also usually a
> popular editor. To remove the Pine and Pico binaries is basicly to tell
> newbies "we don't really care about you and your use of the system is
> secondary to our stance on free software". This is backwards, of course,
> and the use of the system has to be the first consideration. Without
> users, the best software in the world is useless.
I would be rude if I say that we do it for ourself, because it is not true. We
do have the users in mind. And I think most of us believe that we can
support the user better if we prefer free software, because we can fix bugs
and add new features, and we can grant you the very same right. If you care
so much about pine, you should contact the upstream authors and ask them to
make the license less restrictiv.
> If you make the cost of
> entry to debian too high for newbies, your user base might begin to
> shrivel. How is a raw newbie to unix coming from Win95 supposed to get
> pine and pico working now? I think much more has been lost than has been
> gained.
Maybe he does not want to run pine, but netscape and mutt? And even if he
want to run pine, we can explain him how he can do it and why it is
impossible for us to distribute a patched version.
> I have said my piece on the subject. I think it is a grave mistake. I
> also think that this subject will be revisited though I will not bring it
> up. This decision is the best thing to happen to Red Hat since the GUI
> control panel.
I think you have lost control and overstate a lot. Please try to calm down
and rethink the issue. And then *please* try to get the facts by contacting
the maintainer and asking him for the reasons. You may also want to contact
the upstream authors and ask them about hteir interpretation of the
copyright licence. By all means, get constructive.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: