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

Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?



Hi,
>>"Steve" == Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> writes:

 Steve> On 27 Jun 1998 23:58:47 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> Sounds pretty reluctant to me.
 Steve>     Not to me.  Reluctant would not be packaging them at all.

	So we have a difference of opinion. I still think that saying
 something is not part of Debian, but we package it for the users
 anyway, it is non free, we are committed to freedom of software (#1
 Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software) -- I call this
 reluctance. Yes, we package it. We take professional pride in doing
 it well, but that software is not part of Debian.

 >> Quoting out of conte4xt, and quoting incompletely, seems to be
 >> an misguided attempt to be decieving. Why are you doing this?

 Steve>     I am not quoting out of context or incompletely.  I am
 Steve> pointing out that you are selectively choosing which portions
 Steve> to follow and which not to.

	Au contraire. What I think I am following the DFSG, even to
 the extent of proseletysing the free software. I have not objected to
 Qt. I have never objected to non-free software -- even though I
 personally may think that people using such software is a shame, and
 that they are misguided.

 Steve> To what end?

 >> Pardon?

 Steve>     You know, it would help if you wouted the part that this
 Steve> was in reference to to provide context.

	Well, I had just said something about how I would prefer the
 DFSG tightened, Alex would like it looser. I have no idea to what
 ends alex would like it looser.

>>>	Debian, on the other hand, has taken a stance on this
>>> issue. I, for one, am unlikely to change (I think we are not quite
>>> conservative enough on the freedom of software issue; I personally
>>> would like to see the DFSG made tighter; Alex is one who would
>>> advocate the DFSG be made looser). 

 Steve>     How would you make it tighter?  To what ends would it serve?

	Make free software a greater priority. Proprietary software
 divides people, and prevents a sense of community. One is a mere user
 -- dependent on the provider of the software, unable to share with
 friends, feeding ones dependency with more money to the people who
 provide the software that made us dependent.

	Free software is about community. I would like the DFSG to be
 tighter, and more committed to the sense of community that is the
 building block of projects like the FSF and Debian.

>>>	You are asking a bunch of people putting a lot of blood,
>>> sweat, and tears in a project; working without monetary recompence;
>>> to forgo the one thing that holds us together -- our belief in a
>>> community of people committed to freedom of software.

 Steve> I do not see how this statement can be true.  In what part of
 Steve> supporting proprietary software does one, automatically, forgo
 Steve> supporting open software?

	Look at my statements above. Every piece of proprietary
 software tends to divide us against ourselves.  RMS called it
 unspeakably evil. I may not go as far as that, but the concept behind
 his arguments is indeed compelling.

 Steve> That is why I quoted what I did.  The ideal should be a goal
 Steve> of providing a good distribution, based on open software, that
 Steve> anyone can use without being begrudge theit choice of
 Steve> software.  Blood, sweat and tears have nothing to do with
 Steve> that.  Those who have contributed have gotten back what they
 Steve> wanted.  If they did not, they would not still be
 Steve> contributing.

	However, those who contribute decide what the ideal should
 be. Deny them the right, and the flood of contributions trickles to
 an end.

 Steve> I am not calling Debian names, I am pointing out that you have
 Steve> an attitude of religious zealotry.  Please, do not put words
 Steve> into my mouth or read things into my words which are clearly
 Steve> not there.

	One that has the attitude of religious zelaotry is generally
 called a religious zealot. I call this calling names. Try not to hide
 behind sophistry.

 Steve> Read Item 4, you have not done so since you begrudge people
 Steve> who make, use and support proprietary software.

	I do not object to commercial software intended to run on
 Debian. Debian is guided by the needs of its users. Nothing says we
 have to promote commercial software. Nothing says I can't begrudge
 proprietary software, as lng as I do not object and provide the
 infrastructure. Read #4 yourself.

 Steve> And that is all well and good.  Then why are you begrudging
 Steve> people who want, use and produce non-free software?  I'm not
 Steve> talking Debian, Manoj, I'm talking *YOU*.  I'm pointing out
 Steve> that the contract, to me, makes provisions for that software
 Steve> because it is realized that such software can exist.  Why
 Steve> don't *YOU* follow that ideal?

	I too make provisions that you can use such software. (Hint:
 one of my packages is non-free). I still begrudge the fact that there
 is non-free software. I have to support it, and provide a framework;
 nothing says I have to like it. (If you think otherwise: show me
 where it says we have to like proprietary software; or we can't
 begrudge people using proprietary, as long as we do not *OBJECT* to
 it, and continue to provide support. Go ahead. Quote chapter and
 verse, please).

 >> >> Then work on troll tech to release qt under a dfsg compliant
 >> >> licence. Or work on the KDE folks to use something else besides QT. 

 Steve> Why?  It works for them, end of story.  I also agree with
 Steve> you here, begrudgingly.  It doesn't meet the standards set by
 Steve> the DFSG, it is not open, it is contrib or non-free.

 >> The DFSG works for us. End of story.

 Steve> Right, so why do you call it a shame that QT doesn't meet it standards? 
 Steve> It is not a shame.

	In *my* opinion, it is. Are you telling me what to think now?

 >> I stand by the DFSG. No apologies; and with no regrets.

 Steve> I don't think you do.  If you did, you wouldn't be begrudging
 Steve> people for their choices, now would you?

	Where does ti say I can't begridge your choices, as long as I
 do not object, and continue to provide support?  Are you attempting
 to dictate my attitude to proprietary software? The DFSG does not so
 compell me. 

 >> We don't. KDE is available on our ftp site. We do not promote
 >> it; and it shall never be a part of the Debian system. You can't
 >> force us to use it either. We have taken a stance; our stance is in
 >> the DFSG. Why are you trying to force your views on us? What right do
 >> you think you have?

 Steve> What makes you think I am trying to force my views on you?  I
 Steve> am just pointing out that you seem to be blinded to certain
 Steve> passages in the very contract you say you stand by.

	Where? What line? Quote me where it tells me what atitude I
 have to have towardxs the prorietary software I have to support, and
 not object to. Show me where it says I cant begrudge it.


	As a point of clarification: at the moment, I hold no post in
 the Debian heirarchy (at least until the constitution us ratified),
 and even then I still shall retain the right to voice my opinion. I
 do not speak for the project.

	I do aver, though, that the DSG is the contract the project
 has made with the community. The DSG, stands on its own. However,
 according to
 #1: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. According to
 #4: 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

     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 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.  

	I think this speaks for itself. (Nowhere does it say we have
 to like commercial software).
	

	manoj
-- 
 I simply try to aid in letting the light of historical truth into
 that decaying mass of outworn thought which attaches the modern world
 to medieval conceptions of Christianity, and which still lingers
 among us -- a most serious barrier to religion and morals, and a
 menace to the whole normal evolution of society. Andrew D. White,
 author, first president of Cornell University, 1896
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: