[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: main vs. contrib and their purposes



On 20.02.2014 17:12, Simon McVittie wrote:
[...}
> Free software that requires non-free software is exactly what contrib is
> there for. I think the original statement on this is SC §1, "We will
> never make the system require the use of a non-free component".

Right, but residualvm doesn't require non-free software, neither for
compilation nor for execution. It is an interpreter and interprets game
data files from an old adventure game like Grim Fandango. The software,
the game engine of GF, was reimplemented in residualvm. The program
works without non-free software and replaces the old executable in its
entirety.

>> The affiliation of a package to main or contrib is often not decided
>> by its license or if it can be compiled or executed without non-free
>> software but it is often a matter of subjective and arbitrary beliefs
>> of single individuals and those are error-prone.
> 
> Of course, it's possible to argue about whether residualvm requires Grim
> Fandango or Escape from Monkey Island to function. I personally think
> it's hard to claim that an interpreter specifically written to interpret
> two proprietary games, and for which no alternative data-set exists,
> does not require one of those games; you seem to disagree with that
> point of view. I'm not aware of any project-wide consensus or position
> statement either way. In the absence of consensus, the best-placed
> people to decide seem to be the ftpmasters and the maintainer.

That's right. Since the ftpmasters accepted residualvm in main and the
Debian Games Team is the maintainer, here I am again to discuss this
issue more broadly.

[...]

> If what you want to do is, for instance,
> 
> * get inspiration from source code
> * copy nice algorithms into your Free project (which you intend to
>   be in main)
> * develop alternative assets that can replace the non-free ones
> 
> then yes, it is completely valid to not care about the distinction
> between main and contrib: everything in contrib is Free. You might not
> be able to compile it without installing anything non-DFSG (or modifying
> it to use a Free library/compiler/whatever), but if you can, the
> resulting binaries are equally Free. Similarly, you might not be able to
> use it without installing something non-DFSG (or developing a free
> replacement).

You seem to ignore the fact that software in main is not allowed to
depend on software in contrib or non-free. Neither are you allowed to
build-depend on software in contrib. That's a grave restriction. You
always argue from the point of view of someone who is not bound to this
rules.

[...]
> Debian's primary mission is not promoting free software, or constructing
> a mirror network for miscellaneous free software source code and assets.
> Those are good things to do, we do them as a side-effect of working on
> Debian, and I'm sure there are plenty of Debian contributors who
> consider them to be more important than Debian itself, but they're not
> the Debian project's purpose. What we do as a project is to make a free
> operating system, containing software that can be used together; and
> that's why I think "yes, but what does it *do*, in practice?" is a valid
> question to ask.

Thanks for sharing your views on the Debian project. However I always
was under the impression that Debian's goal was to create a free
operating system that was composed entirely of components in the main
distribution. My point is that the main section is the free operating
system and everything outside of it is the maintainers personal pet
project. I think it's bad to have non-free software in main but to
exclude free software from main isn't good either.

Markus

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: