On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:27:29PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > On 26.02.2014 16:19, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:33:44PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > >>> Keeping *all* non-free software out of main is actually a great feature > >>> of Debian. I think you don't appreciate that feature, which is fine. > >> If you are not willing to hold a frank and reasonable discussion, then > >> it is pointless to continue the conversation. > > > > It sounds like I offended you, which was certainly not my intention; > > It should be possible to discuss topics such as "what is source in > regard to artwork" or "how do we define free artwork" without being > stigmatised as someone who don't appreciate free software. Well, it looks like I was wrong that we understood each other's standpoints. I thought you were discussing "how much non-free content is acceptable in a package before it can no longer be in main?" From the (incorrect) observation that you asked this question, I concluded that you weren't really interested in main being 100% free. As to what is source and what is free, I think the GR I linked before gives a very clear definition: source is what upstream would use to make changes. For me personally, in case of pixel artwork (that doesn't have a vector source), that is usually a png; almost never xcf. For sound, it is likely that I would never edit it anyway, which means that whatever form I distribute in the package is also the source. (Which could well be an ogg, and if I have a flac I might throw it away. In such a case, I agree that the ogg can be considered source.) On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:22:21PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > If the process of generating the texture was a long session > in an image editor, cropping, recolouring, rescaling etc. - and those > steps are *not* captured anywhere (so obv. if upstream used, say GIMP, > and saved their steps as an XCF file, that is a different situation), > is the JPEG truly source, in DFSG terms? No. The source is what upstream would use if they would want to make modifications. If the XCF file was not saved (and most of the time even if it was), any format which contains the final pixels will do. > Exactly. How to achieve it. That's the point here. data.debian.org > doesn't exist yet thus outlining available options for the time being is > a valid topic. Yes, certainly. And the GR gives significant room for trying whatever works: it only "strongly recommends" to provide source for non-programmatic works, so if it is not realistic due to size issues, it is acceptable to only provide a link. > Some people might argue that flac files are the source as well as xcf > files might be the superior form for png files. However you seem to > agree that providing a list of links is sufficient in such cases, what > makes me wonder why you criticized my remarks about size constraints in > the first place. No, I don't agree that links are a substitute for providing source. I do agree that in many cases, ogg is just as much source as flac, and png as much as xcf. In those cases, we do not need to ship the other format. We also don't need to link to it, but it's nice of us to do it anyway. > And here you are again alleging that I don't want main to be entirely > free. I perceive this kind of negative assumptions as an attempt to > discredit my efforts to work on a change for games which deserve to be > in main like the Cube2 engine or Red Eclipse. I strongly believe that > both comply with the DFSG but that nobody has worked on them so far. I apologize for causing this; I thought I was merely stating something that we were agreeing on. I certainly didn't intend to discredit your work. > Of course it does matter to me whether a game is in main or not. It's > absolutely no wonder that nobody wants to change the status quo and > work on packages like sauerbraten as long as an unspecific and > destructive "holier-than-thou"-discussion seems inevitable. If you feel like this, that is a serious problem. Do more people feel this way? Personally, I try to stay away from partly-free packages; I prefer working on entirely free things (what also helps is that I don't have working 3-D acceleration, so many of those partly-free games don't work here anyway). But I think it's great that people like you do the work to make (the free parts of) these games available to people like me (who don't want any non-free software on their computer). Anyway, to get back to this motivation-point: I think we should not allow people to be destructive to that. If they are, we should not respond to what they are complaining about, but instead notify them that they are causing this emotional response. I would hope that for most people, that would be enough to make them stop. For those that don't, we can ask listmasters to ban them (temporarily). I am well aware that I am currently talking about myself. I can get carried away at times. I certainly do not mind being corrected when I go too far. And just to be clear: if I don't stop, I don't mind being banned for a while either. That's probably best, both for me and for the list. Of course we do want to be able to have discussions about emotional topics, but we should be able to have them without causing motivational problems. > It is a serious issue when you place free software and artwork in > non-free. This is equally bad as the opposite case. I disagree. If a package contains both free and non-free parts, and we don't spend the time to split those parts, then the combination, including the free parts, can go into non-free. It cannot go into main. I do agree that a package which is entirely free should not go in non-free, but it's not as bad as the other way around. We never promised to put all free software in main. We did promise to put only free software in main. Thanks, Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature