On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:30:13PM +1000, Robert Graham Merkel wrote: > Disclaimer: I'm not a developer yet, but I'm in the new-maintainer > queue. I have used Debian since version 1.3. Glad to see fresh people -- welcome aboard. > I could pose a point-by-point rebuttal to the rationale behind > this resolution, but it seems to me that the assumption is > that making it difficult for people to use non-free software on > Debian will encourage people to use exclusively free software, > which will benefit the Free Software community. I think you misunderstand the point of the GR. The point is *not* to make non-free software difficult to use. The point is to redirect some of Debian's official development resources away from the upkeep of non-free packages. Note all the qualifiers, especially "official". Debian developers will still be free to maintain non-free .deb packages. Non-free .deb packages will continue to exist. They just wouldn't be hosted on official Debian mirrors. A parallel mirror network could be set up, and the mirrors that currently opt-in to non-free could opt-in to that. We might need to implement the long-discussed "Origin:" or similar field in dpkg. A separate BTS would need to be set up for the non-free packages. The automatic bug reporting tools might need to be made aware of these alternative bug systems. *All* of these changes are in fact innovations that don't have anything to do with non-free software. Rather, they acknowledge the success of the Debian package format. Look at Corel and Stormix. We don't get their bug reports -- where do they go? We don't ship Corel and Stormix .debs...where do they come from? Obviously these are problems that have already been solved. We can put support for alternative sources and support networks for .deb packages in our official tools. Yes, it will require a little bit of effort. The General Resolution is not a ban on making .deb packages of non-free software. Such a ban could not be enforced. The license on dpkg does not tell you what you can and cannot package with it. > Instead, the likely impact of this resolution is that users > who currently need to or choose to use non-free software will use > another distribution. You may view this as no loss. I disagree. If the transition is handled well, and if there are people willing to do the work -- if there are as many people willing to work for the continued support of non-free .deb packages as there are to argue about this General Resolution, then the impact on our users need not be very large at all. > If you wish to convince people to use free software, I would venture > that it is easier to do so once they are using Debian, rather than > virtually force them to make the leap before they install. Debian has always consisted only of free software. Non-free .deb packages have existed for a very long time, and will likely continue to exist for a good while longer. This General Resolution does not attempt to change these facts at all. A lot of people seem to be confusing .deb packages with the Debian Project's official endorsement. In light of the existence other Debian-based Linux products (I can think of 3 off the top of my head), it is irresponsible to permit this confusion to continue to exist. If the passage of this GR helps to achieve that end, then that is good. The present problem appears to be one of education, as many people -- especially non-developers -- expressing disagreement with the GR don't even seem to understand what it means. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | The noble soul has reverence for itself. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | -- Friedrich Nietzsche roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpR4w_QmNY03.pgp
Description: PGP signature