Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:26:31AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in
> > non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled
> > differently by every user. I don't know what this can make to bug reports.
> No package can depend on a package that is not even in non-free. Be sure to
> get mail bombed by the buildd's if you upload packages like that.
Sure, ...
but that mean we are not free to use languages where a free compiler is not
available to write free packages which we would like to be in debian.
but then, we should all code in GNU-lisp isn't it ?
> > i said it in the original mail, i think i agree with that, but the issue is
> fine
> > (volutarilly ?) obscured by strange ballots and flamming discution.
> Now that is a completely different thing. I did not understand the ballot
> and I usually ignore flamewars. I am waiting for the real ballot, which joe
> normal debian developer can understand. But its no use mixing up technical
> discussions, philosophy and flamewars.
>
> > No, there are package where you cannot see the source, there are packages
> > which only can be distributed as source + patch (well it is dfsg free, but
> ???
> > there was talk to change this) there is package that is free in spirit but
> > non-free because of bad licence wording and the author don't care. There is
> > package that are free but you cannot use it for commercial purpose. there is
> > package that is free, but you cannot ship with some other package, there is
> > package that is free but cannot be used for military research or other such
> > limitation.
> All of these are non-free and the authors need a little convincing to change
> the license of their package.
Yes, but is the "change your licence or we will quick out your package"
attitude the right one all the time.
I think netscape will not make netscape free because we remove it from
non-free, sure there is mozilla. But smaller developper may not care much if
debian don't ship their package, since they provide rpm's anyway.
> > and then there is package like lha, which is non-free, but i think nobody
> > knows what happened to the author and it is not actively developped anymore
> > (at least the one in debian). And m68k boot floppies use lha, isn't it ?
> Nope, I kicked it out long ago. I said so several times on the debian-boot
> list, and I said if thats the only reason why the boot-floppies are in
> contrib, its time to change that.
...
is there no more a install.lha or such ?
there was discution for a free lha some time back, any news on it, is the
author still reacheable ?
> > you cannot pack them all in the same bag. It was ok for now, because we put
> > them all in non-free, and told people to check the licence for themself. but
> > if we remove non-free, what will happen to those, almost free packages. Will
> You swore an oath on the DFSG, didn't you?
> > we allow more almost free but non-free packages in main ? will we move them to
> not possible, neither contrib
yes, but what about the package who are on the limit of freeness ? will we
move the limit to be more pliant, accept packages in main we would not have
accepted when there was non-free ?
> > contrib ? will we just remove them, let the big one (netscape & co) be
> > distributed by some volunteer and let forget the other one ?
> IIRC, that was the thing the ballot was supposed to be about.
yes, i even voted, but i think it was lost in limbo or soemthing such, no
results ever apeared ...
> > I am in favor of the removing the reference to non-free in the DFSG, but this
> > don't mean we have to remove it from the archive all at once immediately like
> > is proposed. and anyway, if you remove netscape, how big is non-free ?
> cts@ap031:/debian/dists/woody/non-free>du -s -m *
> 65 binary-all
> 79 binary-i386
>
> 37MB of that are netscape I guess. Not really worth the fuss I would say.
> That stuff fits on the small-removable-media-I-do-not-find-reliable, you
> could probably have binaries for all arches on one CD. Do we really have to
> waste so much time on that?
What about distributing source only package. There are packages in there whose
source can be distributed, but no binaries, isn't it. We just make available
the source package and people can compile them.
> > What i am not happy with is the coup like manner of having done this in late
> > stage of the potato freeze, during holiday season, and with things escalating
> > to amendment and counter amendment in an attempt to disinterest or confuse
> > people until the thing get passed.
> As usual, nothing happened yet, right? And it will be hard to remove contrib
> and non-free from all the CDs out there, so what?
what good are out dated packages If you cannot use them with the current set
of libraries you have installed ?
> > I have seen articles claiming that debian is organized in a democratic way
> > (well we are, not we have a constitution and such), but those methods are not
> note?
> > ok. More akin to what happens in the banana republics.
> Have you ever been to parliament? I think its even worse there, and they run
> our countries. Maybe I should come to Strassbourg and we visit the european
> parliament, that would be fun.
I would be happy to show you if you want. It is not open all the time i think,
and there are loads of people who wants to see it. I was there last year when
they did an open doors weekend, it was very crowded then.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
>
> Christian
Reply to: