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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

Adam Heath <adam@doogie.org> writes:

> On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Adam Heath <adam@doogie.org> writes:
> > 
> > > Having a contrib section means part of debian will depend on non-free.  Are
> > 
> > No it does not.  Read the social contract.  Contrib is not part of the
> > Debian system.
> So contrib is not part of debian like non-free is not part of debian.  Let's
> remove that then.

Your attempt to apply a false analogy to my argument is really rather

I do not advocate the removal of non-free because it's not part of the
Debian system.  I instead advocate the removal of non-free because it
contains software that is not Free Software.  As this is not the
general case with sid, contrib, or unstable, your attempt at an
analogy doesn't go anywhere.

> > Contrib does not necessarily depend upon non-free.  I do not therefore
> > make any specific proposal with regard to contrib at this time.
> Contrib depends on things outside of debian.  This implies non-freeness.  So

Not necessarily.

> mentioning contrib in ANY debian document implies debian knows about and
> endorses non-free, by proxy.

If you would like us to remove contrib as well, feel free to submit a
separate call for a General Resolution.

> So don't mention it at all.  Remove 'woody' from the text.
> We can have stable(potato) and unstable(woody) versions of the document.  Or
> do you suggest retroactively modifying all copies?

No, I so not suggest retroactively modifying them, which is why I
wanted to be specific.  I could mention that the change is to take
effect as of the current unstable distribution, I supppose.  Would you
prefer that wording?

> > > All non-free sections removed, eh?  Then how can we 'continue to distribute
> > > non-free software previously distributed via its FTP site prior to the woody
> > > distribution.'?
> > 
> > I did not say that.  I said: removed *from woody*.  
> Yes, you did say that.  Note the use of ' to deliniate a quote that you made.

I did not say that "All non-free sections removed."  The rest of your
paragraph rests upon that incorrect thesis, and as such, is

> > > If non-free doesn't exist, a package can't be introduced, obviously.  If I
> > 
> > That clause is there to make it clear that non-free shall not be
> > recreated at a future time.
> I think that is political wording(the original email), and it confuses the
> issue.

I'm not entirely clear what wording you consider as political, but
would be happy to entertain a different wording so long as the original
spirit is preserved.

> Yes, there is confusion.  You need to restate it.

OK, I think we can do that.

> > The Debian system does not contain non-free on any platform.  On ANY
> > platform.
> I say that the debian system does contain free software.  If it didn't, then
> we wouldn't have non-free and contrib on our servers.

The Social Contract states otherwise.

> (insert point about qmail here)

That is a thorn in our side, indeed, and should have been abolished
some time ago.

> I didn't mean to say that alpha was your only system.  I said primary.  RMS
> doesn't use non-free software(I'm almost certain about that).  Yet, how many
> times has RMS been ignored in public circles because of his opinions on
> non-free software?

If he has, it's a shame.  He has a lot of good things to say, and
being prejudicial because the messenger does not fit one's mold of an
ideal philosopher is not logical.

> Point.  But think of what you COULD accomplish with non-free software? :)

You're stretching :-)

> No, I don't advocate abandonment.  But debian needs to grow, and grow without
> bounds(Jason, don't say anything about the archive size, please).  Having
> non-free software allows us to get a foot in the door, after which we can
> drown out the enemy(the suit(s) wanting to pay for software).

Well I think this is an irrelevant tangent, but anyway...

This does just the opposite.  It makes people (incorrectly) think that
Free Software is not yet ready for prime time.  For every example of
popular non-free software that people trot up, there are already
excellent Free replacements or there will be by the time we are ready
to freeze woody.

-- John

Reply to: