Re: PINE Debian Package
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org> writes:
George> Why do you continue to avoid the question? Debian has
George> distributed Pine in non-free for about two years. As far as I
George> can tell, Pine's license has not changed.
Yes. We goofed. We made and distributed an illegal binary of
Pine. We apologize, and hopwethis does not land us in a lawsuit.
There. You have an answer. Satisfied?
George> It is Debian's POLICY towards that license that has
George> changed. THAT is what I want clarified.
That happens not to be the case. The DFSG has not changed
since its inception. And the DFSG clearly ratifies current
behaviour.
Sorry we made a mistake and did not correctly apply it to
Pine. Hw many time do I have to apologize for that mistake?
George> Pine is not a new package in the distribution nor is it in a
George> new section of the distribution. Debian has had its policy for
George> a long time. That is why the package has always been put in
George> non-free.
In error. I apologize yet again for doing so.
George> Then will someone please answer the question?
I just did.
George> Shooting the messager does not fix the problem. All I want is
George> an clear answer to the simply question: Why did Debian change
George> their interpretation?
Because we happened to actually read the licence now? We
should have read it earlier, and for that I (yet again) apologize. I
hope no one sues us for not yanking Pine earlier.
George> No! I am trying to put the group BACK where it always HAS
George> been.
Sorry, that would be breaking the law, in our opinion. Since
we are the ones facing litigation, pardon us for having less of the
"Damn the torpedoes" point of view. I apologize for that too.
George> I do not want to change its direction, I see it already
George> changing and I am trying to put it BACK on course. I see a
George> general change in attitude on the part of the developers that
George> I think is incorrect and potentially damaging and want to try
George> to correct it if possible.
Please elucidate. We are willing to listen to anything that
does not sound illegal (distributing modified binary PINE is close
enough to being so that I shall be reluctant to change).
George> I agreed with what the policy always had been before but I
George> don't know if I agree with it now because nobody will spell
George> out what that policy IS.
The policy is still the DFSG.
George> Please do not spout off what it says in the docs, it has said
George> that all along.
Sorry, but that is what it has been, and that is waht it is.
George> I want to understand why, suddenly, licenses mean different
George> things than they have in the past. Same license, same debian
George> policy ... different interpretation. Why? What potential does
George> that have for the rest of non-free?
We made an error reading the licence before. I apologize. We
shall look good and hard at all licences to make sure any other such
errors are caught and excised before we make another major public
error like distributing illegal binaries of pine.
I guess we should apologize for being merely human, and
erring. I do so apologize.
George> Please answer the question. Pine has had that same license
George> nearly forever. Debian has had the same policy. Pine was
George> free-enough to go in non-free as a binary for a long time.
George> Suddenly it is not. Why.
Again, We made an error reading the licence before. I
apologize. We shall try not to do so again. We are srry. We are very
sorry.
George> Wait, I missed something .. are you saying that Pine is
George> without a maintainer? Or are you saying that the maintainer
George> changed and the new maintainer inpterprets the license
George> differently than the old one? If that is the case we can hope
George> to possibly convince the new maintainer that he is full of
George> hooey and put the binary back. I think that would make Debian
George> the only major distribution that does not have a Pine binary
George> package.
Yes, Debian _is_ different. We are the only distribution that
follows the DFSG. And this is no longer the interpretation of an
individual. Anyone can look at the licence, look at the DFSG, look at
the litigous nature of the United States, and, Like Santiago, ask the
U of Wa, andreach the same conclusion. It shall now have to pass a
review on the lists in order to be re-included. I think the
possibility is faint.
George> But Debian has also maintained a non-free portion for stuff
George> that does not meet the condifitions of the dfsg. Are you
George> saying that Debian is going to drop non-free and contrib? I am
George> baffled. "The danger of having to remove it"? Huh? You seem
George> confused. main is guaranteed to be 100% free. Non-free is
George> guaranteed to be 100% non-free. I accepted that when I browse
George> in the non-free archive.
No, we shall not drop non-free and contrib. But there are
things that do not even belong in non-free. Qmail and Pine
debs are one. Gated is another.
George> I think we are loosing focus here. The point is that Pine is
George> one of the most popular Unix applications in the world. Pico
George> is also usually a popular editor. To remove the Pine and Pico
George> binaries is basicly to tell newbies "we don't really care
George> about you and your use of the system is secondary to our
George> stance on free software".
That, I think, goes to far, but yes, we are committed to
freedom of software, even to the extent of preffering free software
to a better commercial alternative.
I apologize for our convictions.
George> This is backwards, of course, and the use of the system has to
George> be the first consideration.
Really?
George> Without users, the best software in the world is useless.
Your opinion. My software is uselful to me were I the only
person to sue it. A lot of it is just that -- for my use. I code for
Debian for the community -- and by that I mean people who espouse my
viewpoints about sharing and contributing and freedom of
software. Global market domination does not enter the picture.
So, unlike capitalistic companies, I do think we pay more
homage to our ideals than the maeket driven approach you sugges.
George> If you make the cost of entry to debian too high for newbies,
George> your user base might begin to shrivel.
That would be a pity. But I am not going to abandon my
principles for that. Why do you think I spen 50+hours a week on work,
and another 30orso for Debian? For users who do not even share enough
fo my viewpoint to be freinds?
George> How is a raw newbie to unix coming from Win95 supposed to get
George> pine and pico working now? I think much more has been lost
George> than has been gained.
Depends on your perspective.
George> I have said my piece on the subject. I think it is a grave
George> mistake. I also think that this subject will be revisited
George> though I will not bring it up. This decision is the best thing
George> to happen to Red Hat since the GUI control panel.
I like red hat. I think they make a great OS. We are not in
competition. I recommend them to all people. I happen to prefer
Debian, but Debian is not for everyone. Red Hat is indeed better for
a lot of people. Or Caledra. Or Suse.
I am glad Red Hat benefits from our convictions.
manoj
--
One basic notion underlying Usenet is that it is a cooperative.
Having been on USENET for going on ten years, I disagree with
this. The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame. Chuq Von
Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: