Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
>>"John" == John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
John> 1. That mentions of non-free be stricken from Section 5, and text be
John> inserted, the remainder to read: "We acknowledge that some of our
John> users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian
John> Free Software Guidelines. Our contrib area may help with this
This seems particularily confused. If you are remobving
non-free, why is there still a contrib? So we have a whol;e section
of packages with dangling dependencies?
John> 1. Non-free software is no longer an essential or standard part of a
John> typical installation.
I think I disagree. I have not found Mozilla to be as yet an
adequatre replacement for netscape; nor can I find something for the
festvox packages, and I certainly would hate to lose angband and
zangband (which are only in non free since they prevent commercial
use; the sources are freely available for modification).
I think this proposal is ill considered, lumping as it does
all the non-DFSG packages under one umbella.
Indeed, it cnsider this resolution as breaking the social
contract, and using a general resolution to weasel out of a contract
makes it no better.
John> 2. Supporting non-free software gives nothing back to the Free
John> Software community.
Argue this with example of angband and zangband. How does
preventing commercial exploitation by the community (yes, these
packages are bazaar developed) in any way detract from the free
community? Indeed, it seems to me we get wonderful rogue like games,
with full source code, rights to modify and diistribute -- as long as
the free-as-beer quality is not removed from it.
As I said, this ptroposal has not been thouyght through.
John> The contract is supposed to be one between us and the Free Software
John> community. Supporting a non-free section in no way supports Free
John> Software or its community.
That is a narrow minded (some would say bigotted) view. Us
people in the free software community use commercial software too. I
use word, excel, and rational rose, as well as oracle, in my
life. Being able to use it on a free platform enables me to use, and
contribute, to the free software community.
In your opinion, that may wellk be selling out. I beg to differ.
John> 3. Supporting non-free software gives nothing to Debian.
John> At one time, one may have argued that we needed to support a non-free
John> section in order to have a complete and coherent system. As discussed
John> in #1, this requirement does not today exist.
Give me a replacement for festvox. Or angband. Or even xv --
some png images I produced show up as all black under imagemagick --
but show fine under xv.
John> 4. This clause was never debated when the Social Contract was created.
John> At least I cannot find evidence of much discussion on it in the
John> sketchy archives of e-mail at that time that exist today. It
There is not much of an email record that exists from that
period. The archives do not go back far enough. And yes, it was
discussed, and the contract is the balance beteen rabid free software
only folks, andf the libvertanian pragmatists that wanted on-free
softwae fully in Debian under the guise that our charter should be
being the best, not the free, Linux distribution.
John> 5. The existance of the non-free section is being used as a cop-out by
John> those that seek to peddle non-free wares.
Heh. Bigotry revealed.
John> 6. Most importantly: it's the right thing to do, morally.
Bull shit. The right thing to do is not to renege on a promise
solemnly made. And this motion is letting down the users to whom we
said we understand that you use software that does not meet out
guidelines, but we shall, dear user, support you in that as well.
"I resolved no to be offended easily by human nature, but I think I
blew it." Hobbes
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C