Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 +0000 Emmanuel Charpentier
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
behind Debian "non-free" can be currently duplicated "somewhere else".
Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else can
duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about evidence,
"somehow" seems a little weak for such a basic point. Even so, I am
not so unreasonable as to ask for "proof". You surely know that we
cannot realistically have proof to most of these questions because we
try not to invade our users' privacy.
This may be true from a lawyer's point of view. And that's fine with
practical purposes, the close association of Debian an the "non-free"
non-Debian part is "good enough".
This is worrying and I think it a good justification to support the GR.
I fail to see how my pleading against the removal of a "non-free"
(which I feel childish) goes against the goal of creating a Free
Hopefully, it is obvious that the presence of things in "non-free"
which have no analogue in main reduce the demand for a free software
to do the same thing. It is unknown how much that reduction is and
whether it is significant. Any judgement on that will be subjective.
That said, I do like having some data, especially if it may convince
some floating voters to decide instead of abstaining or voting for
further discussion. I think I agree with the questions posed later:
a) How do you (did you ?) measure this "low percentage" ?
b) The proposition is not about *evaluating* such a move. It is about
the move, and postulates that the evaluation has been done and showed
the "non-free" section has no longer practical uses or "enough"
?) users to bother.
Can we use the popularity contest system to get some numbers? Has
there ever been a straw poll of users? I suggest that simple download
figures will probably overestimate non-free's importance, because of
the CD distributors, but can we get some as an upper bound?
Returning to order:
Someone else in the list (sorry, I can't recall who and when) seems
my concerns, and pointed out that further revisions of the Debian
texts might restrict more and more the set of admissible software in
That is partly the point that frightens me ...
Are you referring to the eating disorder post? It frightens me more
that anyone would send such a message to a public mailing list. That
message seemed groundless, irrelevant and bordering on the offensive.
I'm not frightened that you regard "non-free" as "in Debian" but still
troubled by it. Nothing in this proposal seems to change what is in
Debian. Arguing about that is a diversion.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/