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

Re: Draft new DFSG

>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:

 Joey> * because it is of very low quality, and there is already a far superior
 Joey>   alternative that is also free
 Joey> * because it implements something inherently unsecure, or is written in such
 Joey>   an insecure manner that fixing it would require a rewrite
 Joey> * because it is 5 gb in size and will only be used by a few hundred people
 Joey>   on earth.

	None of these reasons make them non free software. And that is
 what the dfsg is folks. I shall spell it out:

 the reasons cited above make the software less free.

 Joey> All of these seem valid to me. The fact is, no-one in their
 Joey> right mind would wnat to maintain such packages for debian, so
 Joey> they never get into the distibution in the first place. All
 Joey> free software is *not* in debian, and it never will be.

	And none of them need a modification of the DFSG to not be in
 Debian. Buggy and unsafe packages may still go in experimental, if
 some developer is willing to play with stuff (new versions of Gnus
 tend to be hairy).

	As you said, not all DFSG free software is in Debian, and
 there shall never be There is no reason, though, to dilute the DFSG
 saying that anything that strikes the fancy of Debian developers
 shall be deemed non-fere.

	Introducing whimsy into the DFSG is one of the nastiest ways
 to making the DFSG irrelevant to most people. (Why should I place any
 importance to a label when it merely represents the whimsy of a group
 of wacky computer geeks?. Freeness counts. Whimsy does not). I think
 I see this as an attack on the free software community, this dilution
 of the DFSG.

 "If that man in the PTL is such a healer, why can't he make his
 wife's hairdo go down?" Robin Williams
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

Reply to: