Re: Can we do without non-free?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Joop Stakenborg <stakenborg@HYPH.AZR.NL> writes:
> Section 1:Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> A line from this section:
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software.
> The contradiction:
> We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
> Debian.
I see no contradiction. "Support our users" has nothing to do with
distributing free software, and everything to do with what free
software actually is.
One of the underlying themes of the DFSG, and indeed the entire free
software movement, is that the *USE* of software must not be
restricted in any way. Because most of us are software authors we
often concentrate on other parts of software freedom, namely open
access to source and the right to make derivative works, but it is
important that we not forget that software is meant to be used.
Software freedom means that we, the programmers, cannot tell the users
of our software how they can and cannot use it. (Many things are in
non-free for simply this reason, even if they are otherwise open and
modifiable.)
For example, consider gcc. It is free software. It can be (and quite
often is) used to develop non-free software. In fact, its usefulness
for non-free development is one reason why gcc is such a popular and
useful compiler -- had it been restricted to "free software
development only", there would have been no incentive for much of the
work that has been done on it over the years. If you develop non-free
software with gcc, you can still submit bug reports and patches, ask
questions about it and have them answered, etc. That is what
"supporting our users" means.
> Section 4: Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> A line from this section:
> 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.
> My comment:
> What's the non-free section doing in our distribution then?
Technically, it's not in the distribution -- only "main" is.
"non-free" and "contrib" are provided as a convenience.
First, as you read the rest of this message, pay close attention to
the title of section 4: "Our priorities are our users and free
software." Notice that "our users" are listed *first*. That is, our
users are *at least equal in importance* to the ideal of free
software, *if not more important*.
We cannot stop anyone from packaging or distributing non-free
software. Anyone can use Debian, anyone can install the packaging
tools, and anyone can make and distribute a package. (I would also
argue that we don't have the moral right -- if we believe that the
DFSG terms are worth following -- to do so, but that is another
matter.)
Given that we cannot stop packaging of non-free software, it is then a
simple matter of quality control to provide some support for it. When
a user obtains a non-free package from a Debian developer, it is PGP
signed, tracked in the BTS, and policy violations can be dealt with in
the usual manner -- this is far better than trusting a random .deb
from a random web site, packaged by someone who may or may not have
even read the policy manual, with no way of reporting bugs.
If we deliberately ignore certain software, thus encouraging
third-party packaging, then a poor quality third party package will
reflect badly on Debian as a whole... it will be very easy to say
"gee, that stupid KDE .deb fscked up my whole system. Why are those
Debian people such single-minded zealots, that they won't even take
bug reports on crap like this?" (On the other hand, if we have a
non-free section and some third party package fscks up someone's
system, the response is more likely to be something like "gee, perhaps
I should have checked the Debian FTP site first" or even "hmm, perhaps
I should become a Debian developer and fix this".)
> It is time to drop non-free. Debian has so many packages now, there
> must be a counterpart of a non-free package in the main
> distribution.
Simple to say, hard to do. The fact is that users will use whatever
software they want to use, whether it is non-free or not. It is not
so easy to switch from one program to another comparable one -- I can
think of countless examples, but I'll name a couple.
- you have an existing SQL database system using MySQL. The free
alternative is PostgreSQL. (Better yet, let's say that your data
includes many large binary objects stored in ordinary columns, so
that you have to make significant changes to your code to make the
switch.)
MySQL is only barely non-free -- you cannot resell the server, but
the client stuff is free, and the server has no restrictions on
use that will affect most people. If you want users to make this
switch on ideological grounds, it will be a very hard sell.
- you are a user of a non-free scientific or mathematical tool.
While I am not familiar with this area of computing, there seem to
be a few of these in non-free, and I suspect they are the sort of
things that take a lot of time and effort to learn to use
effectively.
- you are using PGP 2.x. The free replacement (GNUPG) is not only
not quite ready for prime time (almost, though!), but it is not
quite compatible with existing command-line arguments and such
(not to mention differences in encryption algorithms).
- you are using qmail, which is non-free due to distribution
restrictions. MTAs are a perfect example of a type of software
where you want to find something that works and stick with it
for as long as possible.
I could go on and on, but the point is that some non-free software is
useful, and more importantly, Debian is not in the business of making
users' software decisions for them. We might encourage them to choose
free software by prominently featuring an alternative, and by
providing a good example of how useful an all-free approach can be,
but we can't force them to only use free software -- and if we are
seen as zealots who refuse to even acknowledge the existence of
non-free software, users will simply look elsewhere for their Linux.
> If we can drop non-free this means we can really distribute free
> software and put all our effort into the main distribution
If you don't want to package non-free software, don't. It is up to
each developer to determine where to place his or her effort; you
can't force other developers to do what you want them to do, and I
think it would be wrong if Debian tried to do it on a group-wide
basis.
Feeling opinionated tonight,
- --Rob
- --
Rob Tillotson N9MTB <robt@debian.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBNdvvE3R+ngWruQ4VAQHVaQP/SxhQqH6h5yovTeNnj/pvUO9Ap3eQIGem
yqMehqB9y9COwqNmFkpu/EbWfumerD4fX6ZMdZS8HsycfMAymtGbKxGflA+ac7U9
ETtDmW9bnBpLEPeFxRG9RcUo9X3QJS2eCaZR7LoKmDjVoVvMOPGipyY9a2Q76dIX
WjGEbJ0eQU0=
=yzMr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: