Of the general resolution
[I'm in the queue, but since I don't have a vote my opinion ultimately
doesn't matter. Proceed thus forewarned]
I've been trying to keep up with this discussion, and there are a couple
of points I haven't seen mentioned so far, so I may as well try to make
them.
* Having non-free present is *good* for free software advocacy.
Granted, having non-free present apparently does make it seem as if it is
part of Debian, if some of the comments in the thread are anything to go
by. But it's a stigmatised part.
Firstly because it's in a separate tree, it increases awareness of the
fact that the software *is* non-free. People are still going to get these
packages, even if it is through a meta distribution, but do these
distributions go to as much trouble to distinguish non-free from free? My
experience is that they don't *at all* if it hasn't already been done in
Debian.
Secondly, because every non-free package in the package list has a big red
non-free beside it. It's clearly stated on the Debian site that non-free
software is *only* provided for convenience, and everything points to a
discouragement of its use.
* A lot of the software in non-free isn't completely non-free
E.g. gimp-nonfree. Packages which use patented techniques are only
non-free in countries which allow software patents, and even then where
the technique has been patented. gimp-nonfree might be non-free in the US,
but it's not non-free to me.
One of the reasons I've seen quoted for this proposed change is that it's
a bone of contention with the Free Software Foundation. But the Free
Software Foundation subclasses non-free; semi-free, patented etc. with
it's 4 levels of freedom. Debian doesn't.
In addition, I've seen a couple of things in main where the license had
been clarified by the author after the mention of non-free. Good people
with good intentions and bad licenses which needed clarification. But
getting clarification seems to be something to be done *after* packaging
the program. Who is going to go to the trouble of packaging some software
and then trying to convince the author to change their license when if
they fail the package won't be recognised?
Basically, I think the middle ground should be taken. Leave it on the main
server, just not in /debian/stable etc. Put it in /non-free/stable or
/freedom-subtracted/stable or something like that, but not on a separate
server. Basically, what Anthony Towns said.
(And there I was thinking I should debianise IE5 for WINE :)
J.
--
"The Information Superhighway made it possible for the average person
to find out what some nerd thinks about Star Trek"
http://lit.compsoc.com/
http://www.litsu.ie/
Reply to: