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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

>>"John" == John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:

 >> No, I don't think so. I find the DFSG to be perfectly fine
 >> here; the programs bgelong in non-free. And I think I am arguing for
 >> the us to continue to have non-free hosted on our sites, and
 >> supported in the BTS. We add value to these programs, and this value
 >> is a useful add-on  for our users.

 John> We have never valued them.  If we had, they would have been
 John> distributed on our CDs.

 	We value them _less_ than free software, but we do not hold
 them worthless. This is a real world distinction that is hard to see
 when ones world is black and white.

 John> We are about Free Software.

 	Not entirely. We are also about making the *BEST* Linux
 distribution there is, too. Yes, there is a preference for free
 software, but one of the winning points about Debian is that we were
 balanced -- not rabid fee software fanatics, and not libvertanian

 John> We are not about providing a crutch for software with bad
 John> licenses.  It's time that people learn that they can't get onto
 John> Debian's mirror network merely by being "close" to Free.  They
 John> have to be Free.

 	People do not magically get on Debian's mirror
 network. Indeed, if a volunteer had not put in effort to get the
 software in, it would not. So a Debian developer has opined that that
 software is worth the time and effort put in it

 John> Not sure what you're saying...  "why are you asking the work..."
 John> People are free to package whatever they want.  Debian is able to
 John> exercise control over what it distributes.

 	Yes, I do understand that this GR is all about control.

 John> We are about Free Software.  It does Free Software no good for us to
 John> be distributing non-free software on our mirror network.

 	Again. We are not entirely about free software -- we are also
 about supporting our users endeavors, and about being the best there
 is. Rabid fanaticism at the expense of quality is *not* what we are
 all about.

 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.

 	And as people are pointing out, you have not looked at the
 packages in non-free, and this is certainly not a true statement.

 >> We package them as .debs. We provide the archive sites. We
 >> provide the BTS. We do the work. Even though these packages are not
 >> part of the distribution, debian developer add value. They make these
 >> packages more useful for our users, and by extention, they make
 >> debian more useful as well. 

 John> They do not make the Debian system more useful; the Debian system does
 John> not use them.

 	They make Debian more useable for people using Debian, even if
 they are add-ons, and not part of Debian.

 John> I would further question whether there is any added utility at all.
 John> These are non-free, and by legitimizing that fact, there is less of an
 John> impetus to either change the license or create Free versions.

	Please. You do not advance the interests fo free software by
 pretending the non-free software does not exist. I think we should be
 about choices -- and we should advocate free software because it is a
 better choice. 

 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> Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that it may be you that are
 John> guilty of this.
 >> Please elucidate. What bigotry exactly am I guilty of?

 John> You automatically assume that I am bigoted.  That attitude is exactly
 John> what you were accusing me of.

	I di no such thing. I think your words speak for themselves here.

 John> This proposal does not mention the BTS.

 	So we can continue to use the BTS for non-fee software?

 John> Where's the fundamental shift?  We are making a technical shift based
 John> on licensing.  It is unfortunate that this particular technical detail
 John> was written into the Social Contract at all.  Had that document been
 John> better written, this could have been accomplished without any
 John> modifications to it and probably without a General Resolution.

 	The social contract is at the heart of what is Debian. Given
 our success, I doubt if we would be where we are now had the contract
 been significantly different. And you are proposing changing what I
 think is the winning combination -- free-sftware advocacy, without
 the fanaticism.

 Since everything in life is but an experience perfect in being what
 it is, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or
 rejection, one may well burst out in laughter. Long Chen Pa
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <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

Reply to: