Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:51:20PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really
> >almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where
> >not
> >even the manufacturer of the hardware has the source for. [...]
>
> The discussion on -legal about this starts with
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00076.html
Yeah, the discussion was of varying quality, with some good stuff, and
some dispute over wether binary kernel modules are allowed or not.
> There seemed to be a few "not sure" comments along the way. It may be
> worth asking -legal again, including whether it is possible to package
> the non-softlib part in contrib? Other interesting things would be
But the plan is to remove contrib anyway, no ?
> trying to find someone who can produce a free software alternative
> (reverse engineering perhaps?), and what licensing@gnu.org has to say
> about this case and whether any of it can be free software.
Well, sure. The only problem with that, is that i am told that only a
handfull of people worldwide understand this ADSL stuff needed for
writing such a free replacement, and they are probably getting paid huge
loads of money by the telecom companies, so i doubt we will find someone
willing or capable of doing this work. In a few years perhaps, this
would be different.
Also you have to regard the investment needed to do such a thing, and if
it would not be better to take this investment in other directions where
more can be done easier for now, and live with the non-free ADSL
library, even if it is a pain for me which want to run my PCI modem on
my powerpc box and can not.
That said, i may write to licensing@gnu.org, what should i ask them ?
Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this
soft-ADSL library ?
> >Anyway, i as debian devel want to be free to use the debian
> >infrastructure
> >to distribute this driver, and the use of the BTS to communicate with
> >my
> >users, which find the the package usefull, even if it is not in main.
>
> Why do you want to use debian mirrors and BTS? If there is good
Because it is there that i conduct my debian work, i am used to it, it
is easy to access all my packages in the same way quickly, and it is the
tool for the job.
> support for using another donated infrastructure, would that suffice?
If there is, maybe. I doubt there is right now, and i doubt the work
needed to make this happen in a satisfactory way is worth it.
> >So, the aim of this whole discussion is about what kind of work can be
> >done inside of debian. These people with their non-free GR, apart from
> >loosing everyone's time, are trying to impose on me what i can work on
> >inside of debian, without even bothering to look at the issues in
> >detail, and answering arguments made against their case. I guess some
> >of the contributors may not even be debian devels.
>
> The question is fairly basic, I agree. Why should work which doesn't
> help to develop a free software operating system be done inside the
> debian project? Do we already "impose" on people what can be
> distributed as part of debian by using the DFSG?
>
> 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. I
have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the "let's
remove non-free camp" has responded on them.
> viewpoints) are active on -legal and look at these sorts of issues
> frequently. Maybe some of us have missed issues about ceasing non-free
> support which you should point out, or maybe you consider them with
> different importance.
Yeah.
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). This will result in a less free main, and maybe
even in dishonesty about some reasons for packages to be removed from
main because of non-freeness that their maintainers would be less
prompt to reveal if they discovered it and other such case. Not to speak
the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is
going to happen.
I believe that removing non-free from debian infrastructure will be
counter-productive and a detriment to our users (of which we developers
are the first ones).
You don't have only to look at the short time goal of not having the
non-free on debian servers, or at least not visibly, but forget the long
term goal of providing a free operating system of quality to our users,
and in general hinder the progress of free software in general.
non-free but almost free software should be considered as needing help
to be moved toward freedom, not anathemized and being thrown away. Many
free software of today started as non-free software, probably most of it
anyway, even the linux kernel, or the maybe even the whole GNU stuff,
from the time before the GPL was not yet fully finalized.
> 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 ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: