Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
> > > Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer
> > > have access to Debianized packages of this non-free
> > > software? These packages would simply have to be managed
> > > outside of the official Debian infrastructure.
> > Note the _have to_ above.
> > Who will do this?
> Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project!
Thanks for adding to the load. My point is that I don't like a
GR that relies on vapor-ware or vapor-support for the continued
support of users who use contrib or non-free packages.
Kiss those contrib packages goodbye too remember.
> since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps
> non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those
> archives and the bug tracking system?
Debian doesn't need extra resources for the current non-free
archives. That's not the point. It's whether whether Debian
can, it's whether it should.
> > > not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot
> > > of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will
> > > eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK.
> > Or when XForms goes DFSG-compliant.
> > But there's already something missing. What about next year's
> > great tool that we don't have a free replacement for?
> Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things
> themselves can pay money to a consultant.
Or simply install RedHat.
> If there is enough interest,
> they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If
> users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should
> everyone expect a free lunch?
Debian is free. Why would our support of contrib or even
non-free packages be charged for?
> > > Other packages may
> > > follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian.
> > Why will this change?
> I don't understand your question. If a developer wants her software in
> Debian, she might choose to write a DFSG compliant license.
My point is this. Do you think the proposed change will further entice
developers into licensing DFSG-compliant?
> > > Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well.
> > Insider information? What makes you say this?
> > Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license?
> Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but:
> the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since,
> KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant
> unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the
> code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that
Out of date. The QPL is not compatible with the GPL, even if
both licenses are DFSG-compliant.
> There are many types of users that depend on Debian. Most of them probably
> have a mixture of motives that include both the political (DFSG) and the
> practical (apt rules!). However, the argument that Debian should be
> worried about keeping all the users is not one that I personally buy.
I'm worried about loosing contrib, waisting _more_ time
supporting some non-free or contrib software, and the explosions
of badly-made and incompatible deb packages that may result.
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/