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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2


On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:55:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>  Marcus> I would hope that interested parties will continue to provide
>  Marcus> and debianize such software using non-Debian ressources. apt
> 	Ignoring, of course, the likelyhood of the infrastructure
>  being feasible at all, espescially withut the name of Debian, and the
>  fact that non-free is not as sexy to donors as being involved with
>  Debian.

If nobody cares enough about non-free to provide appropriate infrastructure,
and to advertise it sufficiently to get the attention, and if no donor is
interested in this offer, in short, if the general interest in non-free
software is so low, I quite don't understand why people keep to point out
how useful and important it is, and how many people will miss it.

>  Marcus> can deal with it, and even without apt it is not hard to get
>  Marcus> at those packages if they are provided via ftp and
>  Marcus> http. Those packages can be of the some quality as within
>  Marcus> Debian, and anybody can choose for himself which software
>  Marcus> outside the DFSG is worth working on.
> 	I see. Just like red hat contrib packages can be as good as
>  the packages inside. 

Bashing Red Hats contrib area does not add value to the discussion.
I have never seen it, and can't comment on it. From what I know I doubt that
it is even remotely comparable to the issue at hand.
>  	You, sir, have a low opinion of the value that Debian, as an
>  integrator adds, and that the whole may be greater than the sum of
>  the parts. 

This is not true (please try to not second guess my opinion on things,
it is likely that you are wrong. If you think that a previously unmentioned
opinion adds to the discussion, please ask and I will try to offer one on a
specific issue). We are in general not able to fully integrate non-free
software in Debian because of license issues. I grant you that sometimes we
can make a good effort, but this is nothing that couldn't be done by a
(logically) seperate entity.

>  Marcus> I have not heard a reason yet why it is technically better to offer
>  Marcus> non-free software on Debian servers.
>         This is a political issue. But, htere goes: integration into
>  the rest of the distribution. Avasilability. BTS. Dependencies
>  handled by the apckaging system. Quality control. Policy compliance. 

Nothing which is restricted to Debian anyway. I can even imagine that a
seperate entity can handle several things better than Debian can (for
example, it could mark the software which various degrees of non-freeness,
something that Debian decided not to do. Or it can make an effort to
increase the amount of non-free software available by contacting vendors
about border-line software).

I agree that it is a political and moral issue. However, the technical
aspects came up several times, and are frequently used as a contra-GR
argument. This is why I questioned it. If you want to keep it out the
discussion entirely, I am happier, because personally I don't consider the
value of free software by its technical aspects primarly.


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server 
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    for public PGP Key 
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de,     marcus@gnu.org    PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/       brinkmd@debian.org

Reply to: