Hi Paul, On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:43:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > To the candidates, > > Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed? > On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree, iucode-tool from contrib. On my server, I have pine, which I don't use but some of the users on it seem to be unwilling to move to anything else. > How do you feel about Debian's approach to non-free software laid out > in Social Contract item 5? Is it the right approach? Should we change > it? I believe that is a good balance at the moment. This manages to balance the two core characterics I mentioned in my platform: "We care about software freedom" and "We care about our users". There is an argument that has been brought up many times on our lists around SC#4 as well in this area. One school of thought is that a 100% strict adherance to only using free software is in itself in the interest of our users. I don't subscribe to this view. Although it *is* in the interest of our users to use 100% free software, if they're unable to use their computers, or get real work done with a free operating system, then that doesn't help progress free software and Debian. > How much support should Debian give for non-free packages? Whatever maintainers are willing to do, and as a project on a best-effort basis. > Should the bug tracker accept reports about non-free packages? Yes, it's very little cost to the project to do so. > Should non-free packages remain in the Debian archive and mirror > network? Yes, see the last answer for more details. > Should we continue to provide buildds for select non-free packages? Yes, if there's people willing to run the non-free network. > Should non-free packages be part of releases and or receive security > support? It depends what you mean for 'release' and 'support', but I think my answer is 'sort of', on a best effort basis. If there's people willing to put in the work then I don't think we should stand in their way, but the focus of Debian should be on main. > If we were to drop non-free from debian.org, what level of separation > between non-free.org and debian.org is appropriate? The name only? > Completely separate infrastructure and developer set? Somewhere in > between? > I don't think that splitting this up helps our users. Using debian.org provides a trusted distribution mechanism. I think it's better that people get trusted non-free packages from us, than get them from a random third party by burying our heads in the sand and pretending non-free software doesn't exist. Neil
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature