Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
I have been quite disturbed by some of the comments that I have been
hearing on this thread. We have had this discussion (about non-free and
contrib) recently, and done some acutal re-organization of the packages
found there, so why do we continue to use this as a rallying point?
Several false statements have been made during this discussion:
1. DFSG is an unratified document produced by Bruce.
I was not alone when I voted for this document to represent our
position on software freedom.
I was not alone when I discussed the proposed document from Bruce
on these lists.
This document was heavily edited by the group and clearly ratified
by an open vote.
2. The Debian Project rejects and refuses to support contrib and
non-free software.
Contrib and Non-free are "fully" supported packages, seperated
from the main distribution for the protection of our users.
Yes, many packages in non-free can be distributed on CDs, but the
terms of that distribution are different for each package. Placing
them in non-free simply tells folks who distribute this software,
that they should check the license before putting it on a CD
The fact that these packages are still in the archive is a clear
indication that we support their use, not to mention that these
packages have full access to the bug tracking system.
3. As an example, Pine was indicated as being in non-free for
"trivial" reasons.
When I stopped maintaining Pine, the reason that it was in
non-free was primarily due to the clause that said Pine could not
be distributed with proprietary software. This clearly makes it
non-free.
Matters have gotten worse since then. The current license does not
allow any redistribution of modified binaries. Thus, this package
may only be distributed in source form, with the end user being
required to build the binary locally. This is clearly less free
than many other packages in non-free.
The non-free nature of some software causes problems for our
users, and I'm using the term "user" in a much broader way than
just "a warm body that types 'pine' at the Linux prompt, and
'uses' the program to send mail". We identify these packages for
our users, by placing them in these special catagories, in order
to protect them from the legal ramifications of treating this
software like it was truely free. We place no more restrictions on
their use, and, in fact, work hard to integrate contrib and
non-free into the general package installation scheme.
While Paul and Alex (oops, let's not forget Christoph) seem to be the most
vocal about a need to change the DFSG, I only disagree with the direction
that they desire for that change. I would argue that our definitions are
not strict enough. We provide the "Artistic License" as an example of a
"Free" license, while it clearly restricts distribution "for sale". I have
argued in the past, and will continue to argue, that software isn't free
if you can't sell it.
These liberties are all centered around "distribution" (yes there are
other issues like modification and availability of source etc...) of the
software in question. Even on the issues of modification, the restrictions
that appear have to do with the distribution of those modifications. (no
license can keep you from modification of the source, only from the
distribution of those modifications) All of the other issues, like source
availability, are also related to distribution.
While the distribution restrictions we notice and deal with have no effect
on Joe College, sitting at a terminal sending email with Pine, they have
potential devistating consequences to those who might supply his college
with their copy of Pine. It is for these reasons alone that segregation
into contrib and non-free are valuable and useful beyond the limited arena
of our dogma about what constitutes "Free" software. The fact that even
its detractors recognize this as dogma should suggest that it is, in deed,
a clear statement of our position on this subject.
While I agree with (what I think are) most of the developers, that Debian
is THE proponent of "Free Software" outside the FSF, and that this ideal
should be maintained at all costs, I don't agree that this makes "Quality"
a second class citizen. Quality and Freedom must go hand-in-hand for
Debian to remain true to its principles.
One says, "There is a really good piece of software out there, but it is
non-free. Can't we treat it as free, because it is so good?". I say,
"No!", because these two issues are totally unrelated! The only compromize
that I am willing to make is the one that we currently make, by providing
(when possible) as much software (free or non-free) as possible,
integrated into the packaging system so that end-users can gain access to
this "necessary" software. Anything else would compromize my ideals, with
respect to Free Software, and would be unacceptable.
I would like to see a mechanism for updating the DFSG, but for the purpose
of strengthening the definition of Free, not diluting it. I can also see a
good reason to leave the DFSG alone and stable. We don't want the
reputation of a group that can't make up its mind about something that is
this important. For someone who wants a more free distribution there is
the freedom to do so, and write their own definition of what Freedom means
for their software. The DFSG is our statement of what Freedom means for
our software distribution...no more...no less.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
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: