Re: freedom-subtracted.debian.org (was: Re: KDE)
On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 09:17:06AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > But only "main" is our distribution. contrib and non-free is not part of the
> > Debian distribution (in the sense that main is). This is a fact that could
>
> FUD. The Debian group manages, and distributes, main, contrib, and
> non-free. Each of these distributions are created by Debian developers who
> consider them important to the completeness of the distribution. Saying
> that they aren't part of Debian is a mistake.
Don't drag me into a discussion about terms and usage. If you mean with
"Debian" everything under the sun that has something to do with the Debian
project, contrib and non-free are paret of Debian as well as every
developer, every user and such.
I prefer to refer to the following texts:
Social contract, number *1* (in words ONE, the first number, the beginning of it)
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
software.
So, non-free CAN'T be part of "Debian", in the sense I mean the word Debian.
Please use some tag to distinct this meaning of the word from your meaning
of the word (which seems to be much broader), if you like, but don't confuse
the issue at hand.
" but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software."
So contrib CAN'T be part of Debian, too.
This is settled for me. If you still object, you need to provide more then
memorys back before the social contract and Debian's history.
Here is another one, to stress my point:
Debian Policy document, section 2.
2. The Debian Archive
---------------------
[...]
The _main_ section forms the _Debian GNU/Linux distribution_.
Of course, you all know that already. I wonder why you try to diluge the
word "Debian" I used instead answering my real point. Seems you are just
trying to argue.
> > be stressed by having either a virtual domain that does essentially pointing
> > to the normal ftp achive with symlinks but leaves contrib and non-free out.
> >
> So the clueless user will never be able to find them?
You make the assumption that this would be the default server, something I
could live with but would not try to suggest. For me, something else can be
the default server wich has contrib and non-free on it.
It's interesting how you try to argue my point. First you try to drag me
into a discussion of terms, now you make false assumptions. This is not very
helpful. The issue is conentious enough.
> > I do not even request that any existing domain name changes. I would only
> > wish that we ADD a virtual domain where contrib and non-free are simply not
> > there. official.debian.org for example. People who don't like it could use
> > ftp.debian.org as they do now.
>
> Why should we eliminate part of the distribution and then call it
> Official?
Because this is what Debian is. Still.
> > You are defending the existing structure very convincing and very hard, too.
> > Now, can you also respect that some purists like me would enjoy a virtual
> > domain where contrib and non-free is just not accessible? Is your tolerance
>
> I have no problems with this, unless you insist that Debian should provide
> the FSF definition of pure. Debian is _not_ the FSF, and we have other
> concerns to deal with.
>
> RMS has indicated that he would be willing to set up the additional
> "restricted" domains. Why not take him up on it?
Did I refer to the FSF? No. Did I refer to RMS? No. Please leave them alone
and do their thing.
I am quoting the Social Contract and the Debian Policy. I am refering to our
own terms and definitions.
As everyone, RMS is free to mirror Debian and Debian only (without the
additional support of non-free and contrib). I still think we should take
some action on our own.
> > huge enough to accept adding such a virtual domain, which doesn't harm
> > anyone, especially not existing infrastructure?
> >
> > I don't argue anything you said above, but it is not the only way to see it.
>
> It has always been so with Debian. The current energy to change this goes
> counter to our Social Contract.
You should back this up with actual quotes from the Social Contract,
otherwise I can hardly understand what you mean.
> The dependency screen issue is a straw man. That problem (main packages
> refering to non-free) has already been dealt with, hasn't it?
Which dependency screen issue? You are definitely confusing this thread with
another one. I know what you mean, but I have my own point here to make,
please don't confuse it with one of the other discussions in the past.
> Clueless users don't ever constitute a good argument for doing anything.
> If users can't be bothered to understand the details of what they are
> doing, they aren't going to be able to make much use of Debian in any
> case.
You wrote above:
"> So the clueless user will never be able to find them?"
Do I need to say more?
> This is a political issue, not a technical one. You side with Richard on
> the issues of purity, but Debian has historicly served a broader market
> than that. I don't blame you for your position, as you are certainly
> welcome to take the "pure" position, however Debian is defined to be
> somewhat broader than that pure system you desire. That broader
> perspective still supports your desire for a pure system by segregating
> everything else outside of main. If we didn't support the pure system,
> then contrib and non-free could simply be incorporated into main. This
> would, obviously, be a mistake from both our perspectives.
Strange. Now that I have read your mail, I can't find a single technical
reason why we should not provide a new domain with only free software on it.
I didn't even saw a political reason.
Somehow I feel you didn't want to address my point. I am somewhat disappointed.
If I misinterpret what you said, I am willing to read a clarification.
Otherwise there is little left to say.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: