Hi, On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:31:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:02:41AM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:45:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Is it your belief that most people in the Free Software community would > > > rather do nothing than work on Free Software? > > > > /That/ is exactly why it's unpersuasive. Just as unpersuasive as the > > argument that good things are only developed when monetary incentives > > exist. > > I am not asserting the truth of the statement implied by my question. I gathered as much, and I think it's a counterargument against the piece you blockquoted. > > Either we're willing to develop free alternatives in the face of > > non-free solutions, or we're not. > > I think that is a carelessly overbroad statement. I think *some* of us > are willing to develop free alternatives to non-free solutions, and some > of us are not. > > Some of us will feel compelled to start or stop working on free > alternatives to non-free software if this GR passes, and other people > won't feel any differently at all. Ok, I accept the nuance, but I don't think people will start working much harder on alternatives when the GR passes. As long as the number of packages in non-free continues to decline and only the special purpose packages and/or packages people particularly care about remain, the effect will be even less. > > But I don't think /artificially/ making the use and support of > > non-free harder will provide any incentive to work harder on Free > > Software. > > "Artificially"? I do not understand how the current state of affairs is > "natural". It is an artifice deliberately constructed in early 1997. Yes. But changing the status quo, making non-free less accessible and harder for contrib packages to depend upon and provide a coherent whole, is, at this point, now all infrastructure is in place, quite artificial. > > People will already spend as much time developing free software as they > > have time and energy to. But priorities will generally be determined by > > personal need for the software, public recognition and the feeling > > you're doing something useful for others. Not by artificially raising > > barriers to use existing, non-free software. > > "Artificially raising barriers" makes it sound like you feel that the > Debian Project has monopoly power in the distribution of Debian packages > (in the deb(5) sense), and that our actions make or break the entire > playing field. > > Do you feel that way? No. I do feel that removal of non-free gives at least as much new work as it takes away, so that only other reasons remain to change the status quo. The Debian Project /does/ have a monopoly power in what goes through its great QA process, gets tracked by BTS and distributed through its mirrors. If it consciously decides to stop distributing something, and that /cost/ effort instead of giving less effort, then I'd say there must be /very/ good reasons for it. As Adam said, if it's just the confusion people seek to end, then please rename main to Debian to make it more clear what the Debian distribution is, and lets get over it. > > If it were only that easy to get work and dedication from people by > > kidding them. I think that people spend all that time and energy only > > when they see a /real/ value in doing it. And writing Free Software has > > such value. But merely making existing non-free software less visible > > doesn't improve the value of writing free alternatives as perceived by > > potential developers. > > You assert this without foundation. You assert this to be the case for > everyone; I don't. Have you figures to back up your claims? Perhaps it's a bit broad, and projecting how I feel about developing software. However, suppose I'd maintain a package such as qmail, and I personally feel it's free enough to package it, I wouldn't feel in the least more compelled to help making Postfix better if qmail would not be distributed through the Debian mirrors anymore. And although I can't prove it at this point, I do feel that I wouldn't be alone in this. > > That's that piece is entirely unpersuasive. > > If your thesis is grounded on faith rather than evidence, I doubt there > is anything anyone can do to persuade you! You can. I just feel the cost/benefit ratio of this GR is severely skewed. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgpxMhlXSN6WL.pgp
Description: PGP signature