Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
On Jun 27, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> The more I am think about it the more it seams that having a separate
> non-cd branch (to include packages that cannot be distributed on cd rom)
> and a non-free branch (to include programs that are ok to distribute)
> seams like a really good idea.
I'll reply at this level (mainly because the next 100+ messages got way
beyond the core issue here...)
It is a really good idea. However, convincing the individuals with
strongly-held views who "run" Debian of the goodness of this idea is
problematic, to say the least.
I'll respond to a few of the arguments that were made against this idea:
1. Having a CD-OK distribution (I'll call it "cd-ok") in addition to
non-free creates extra work.
Depends on how it's done. Since everything already in non-free can stay
in non-free, as someone already pointed out, only maintainers uploading new
versions have to make a decision to change "non-free" to "cd-ok" in their
debian/control file; old packages can stay in non-free, with wishlist bugs
(if someone wants to file them) saying that the license is cd-ok.
2. Having a cd-ok "endorses" non-free software.
So do non-free and contrib.
3. Having a cd-ok means we're "applying policy to non-free software".
We're applying policy to non-DFSG-free software already: we expect it to
meet the packaging standards, for example.
4. Having a cd-ok detracts from the goal of promoting free software by
"rewarding" non-free software.
We're already rewarding non-free software by devoting several hundred
megabytes of disk space to it on every mirror, by allowing the use of the
bug tracking system for non-free packages, and by advertising the existence
of it on the web site.
The only real objection here is that a "cd-ok" makes it somewhat easier
for CD-ROM vendors (including several Debian developers) to decide what
software they will include on CDs, and that this may further the
redistribution of non-free software. Yet there is clear demand for non-free
software in the user base (I find it hard to believe that many i386
developers [let alone users] don't have Netscape on their machines, which is
definitely in the "cd-ok" category; until Ghostscript 4 became GPLed a
couple of weeks ago, there was no way to read PDF documentation using
packages from main).
5. (paraphrase) Our maintainers are too stupid to tell the difference
between CD-ROMable software and non-CD-ROMable software.
If they are too stupid to read a license and figure out whether it's OK
to put the software on a CD or not (i.e. can't pick out phrases like "You
may redistribute this software in unmodified form without restriction."),
then they're probably too stupid to be maintainers. Not only is this
argument an insult to the intelligence of hundreds of Debian developers
(made by an individual in the "if it's not DFSG, it's crap" camp, whom one
would expect to be more "in tune" with the maintainers than his opponents),
it's also the perfect example of the thoughtless, ad hominem attacks that
have characterized this debate.
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | My home page: |
| <quango@ix.netcom.com> | http://www.clark.net/pub/lawrencc/ |
| | |
| Amiga A4000/040 and | This address has been spam-proofed |
| Linux/m68k 2.0.33pl1 | All spam goes to your postmaster |
=============================================================================
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: