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

Re: Clarifications

On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:

> There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now.  Let me
> clarify a few points:
> 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has.  My
> proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution.
> This bears repeating.  This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution.

	I disagree.  It will have effect on the CD distribution.  It will
have an effect on the http/ftp/rsync distribution.

> 6. This proposal is made on my own accord and does not represent the
> interests of any other party.  I advance it because I believe it is
> the best for Debian.

	A large problem with this proposal is the form and reason for it.

	The reason seems to be completely political.  There are no
technical merits to it.  Letting outselves be driven by politics may
not be beneficial.  As a change there needs to be some justification and
a solid reason to make such a change.  The creators apparently felt
there was reason for non-free to exist.  Non-free is clearly beneficial
to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it.

	Concern should be raised as to the reasons for this political
statement.  What is the external reason for this change?  Have users
been confused as to the meaning of 'non-free'?  Or have they been
confused with regard to what Debian is and stands for?  Or is it bad
press that Debian is being hypocritical with it's ideals?

	It is unlikely that any of these are the case.  If 'bad press'
is indeed the reason then perhaps Debian is not about developers and
users and is instead about politicians and mud slinging.

	Developers know what Debian is, and what it stands for.  Users
understand Debian's goals and policies.  Press in general should be
ignored unless there is some technical merit to it.  Let us not cause
greater confusion and work in order to make a statement about what we
are, for we are already known and understood.

> 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other
> Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software
> -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software.

	This appears against the ideals that are apparently desired and
makes for confusion.  Such a split would be worse than a complete break.


Reply to: