Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
> another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
> (such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
> On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
>
> Yep, there's problems. We don't know how difficult it will be to
> overcome them, but it may be possible to overcome them, one way or
> another.
Ok.
> >That said, i may write to licensing@gnu.org, what should i ask them ?
>
> Really, whatever interests you. Some questions may be answered in
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs I think, but
> they may have interesting opinions about things where -legal
> participants were not sure.
A, we misunderstood each other. I have no doubt about the legal
situation, but about asking help for getting a free replacement of the
ADSL library.
> >Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this
> >soft-ADSL library ?
>
> Sorry, I work flat out and don't need it myself right now.
This was not directed to you. See above.
> >>I think you are mostly wrong about "without even bothering to look
> >>at the
> >>issues in detail". Many of the participants here (with a range of
> >Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail.
>
> You've changed your accusation. I think that you're probably right
Not really, maybe my previous words were not clear enough or something.
Anyway, i am not a word nitpicker like others here, and i believe that
the intention is more important than the words used.
> now: no one person has examined all of non-free. That is not the same
> as not having looked at the issues. Possibly they don't know them all,
> but do you? If so, can you publish a full bullet list summary of them
> for us?
The thing is different. They are asking for the removal of all the
stuff, so they should know about all the stuff.
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
That said, most people simply don't care enough about non-free, which is
why we have it, and it is in general of not so good quality. But this
supopses some work, and i believe it is work that is on the side of
those who want to convince us to remove non-free.
> >I
> >have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the "let's
> >remove non-free camp" has responded on them.
>
> I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence.
Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
the word, and what will actually happen.
> >Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a
> >non-free
> >anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into
> >non-free
> >today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
> >guess you understand).
>
> We make mistakes sometimes already and have to correct them. This
> sometimes results in the package being removed entirely and every
> maintainer I've worked with has been honest, thoughtful and polite
> about it. I doubt that will change.
Yep, but because there was non-free. I know i would have opposed some of
those decisions if there was not non-free. I guess others would have to,
especially in the border cases. Also, the amount of non-free
documentation in main sets a bad precedent.
> >the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is
> >going to happen.
>
> Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in
> main?
Yes. naturally. Any other stance would be highly hypocrit on our part.
> >>Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why
> >>guess?
> >Because i have more usefull things to do with my time ?
>
> I think you probably have more useful things to do than lob idle
> random accusations around, too.
Sure sure. Debian-vote is an open channel, and non-DD have already
participated in the debate in the past.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: