Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
> so how would you 'break things up'? by whim or personal preference?
Of course neither. Come on, there's got to be something sort of more in the
middle of the two arguments then either the dfsg or a total 'break up'. I
just think it would be nice to work on either a) maybe a new category to
seperate some of the more free current non-free packages, or b) maybe just a
new name for non-free that described it a little better in real world terms.
I like non-dfsg (of which case the dfsg are ok) because then it forces the
person to actually go find what we mean by 'dfsg'. We would, of course, make
that information more easily run-intoable for our new users.
> > > Debian is *NOT* opposed to commercial or non-free software. Our
> > > focus is on free software but that doesn't make us 'against'
> > > non-free programs.
> >
> > That is the way it looks to the rest of the world. It doesn't matter
> > if you make up your own rules and definitions if you don't really
> > explain them to the rest of the world.
>
> huh? that's *PRECISELY* what debian's social contract and DFSG are. they
> are an explanation to the world of what we mean when we say "free".
Do you know how out of the way those documents are for new Debianers? With
the priority they place for Debian (and they are pretty important, obviously)
they should be on the very front of our homepage. They should be part of the
installation procedure (one of those texts that pops up). And so on...
> Debian's social contract states unequivocally that debian is not against
> non-free software.
>
doesn't sound quite like that too me.
> : 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> :
> : We will be guided by the needs of our users and the
> : free-software community. We will place their interests first
> : in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for
> : operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We
> : won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on
> : Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added
> : distributions containing both Debian and commercial software,
> : without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will
> : provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free
> : software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these
> : kinds of use.
> :
> : 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 FTP archive for this software. The software in these
> : directories is not part of the Debian system, although it
> : has been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD
> : manufacturers to read the licenses of software packages in
> : these directories and determine if they can distribute that
> : software on their CDs. Thus, although non-free software
> : isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide
> : infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> : lists) for non-free software packages.
>
I would simply say that this part (especially section 5) is worded so that it
sounds like we are putting down non-DFSG compliant software.
I would be happy if maybe changed the way some of this was worded. I would
change: "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..." to something more like "We acknowledge that
there are some pieces of software which, while they do not conform to the
Debian Free Software Guildlines, are still excellent programs are a very
useful to our users. Therefore, we have created "contrib" and "non-free"
areas..." This makes it explicitely known that we are not, like you said
above, unequivocally against free software.
> > Our definition of free needs revised.
>
> Why? We only came out with it at the end of June this year, after
> nearly a month's discussion and revision of the document by the
> developers. That's only 4 months ago. What has changed so much in that
> short time that we have to go through that process again?
>
> In case you weren't around at the time, or have forgotten, the debian
> social contract and free software guidelines were discussed, debated,
> modified, and finally passed by a clear majority of the developers.
It doesn't sound like the discussion ever ended. And no, I wasn't around back
then. Back In June I had just switched over from RedHat to Debian... This
doesn't mean I can't understand Debian, though.
> > _OR_ we need to maybe see what we can do to make it seem less like we
> > are passing judgment on the _less_ non-free software. Does that make
> > sense?
>
> maybe it's your own value judgements about free and non-free that are
> bothering you? you prefer free software but happen to like pine. well,
> so do i. i think pine is great. however, it's not free according to the
> debian definition of free. if a free alternative which was as good (IMO)
> ever came along then i'd probably switch to it immediately.
No, this is not what's bothering me. I am simply afraid that people will get
a bad impression of Debian because of something which really isn't true. I
don't want people to think of us as close-minded and arrogant.
Paul J Thompson
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: