On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
> software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
> way or another!
I don't think it's meaningful to claim that anything under
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ isn't part of Debian in _some_ way or other.
Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not recommended,
or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms where you have to
engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk about stuff.
> If you look at both of your examples, you will realize that this *is*
> an assumption you are making. Why don't you assume for a moment (as I
> have since for the last half decade) that Debian distributing software
> from the FTP site does not imply inclusion in the Debian system or
> being part of Debian.
The "Debian system" is fine; but "Debian" refers to the project as a
whole about as often as it refers to the contents of "main".
How about:
1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free software. As
there are many definitions of free software, we include the
guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will
support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian,
but we will never make the Debian Distribution depend on an item
of non-free software.
and
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for this
software. The software in these directories is not part of the
Debian Distribution, although it has been configured for use with
Debian. Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of the Debian
Distribution, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure
(such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free
software packages.
?
> I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck
> between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a
> project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those
> who did wanted to have the project distribute and support non-free
> software.
There's a difference between being "explicitly" a Free Software project,
which I think Debian is without any question, and "exclusively" a Free
Software project, which is the question at issue here.
I don't see how it'd be possible to have a compromise between the people
who want Debian to be exclusively a Free Software project, and those
who want the Debian project to distribute non-free software. I can't
really see how anyone who refused to work on anything but exclusively
free software projects would be willing to work on Debian.
That's a different choice to refusing to work on anything but free
software, though.
> > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
That's a really weak and uninspiring statement, too. Even Microsoft
distributes software that's 100% free.
> You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one that's
> about what Debian distributes.
And that's the question. Is it our distribution that's meant to be 100%
free, or is it our project? Our distribution is already exclusively free
software, but the project as a whole isn't.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature