Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
grendel@vip.net.pl (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > I feel compelled to point out here for the umpteenth time that
> > non-free software is not part of the distribution, has never been, and
> > no doubt never will be.
> Your original resolution made a quite contrary impression on me and,
> probably, some other people here. It sounded like you wanted to *clean*
> Debian from the non-free trash. But, considering non-free, is *not* a part
> of the distribution, the problem ceases to exist.
non-free is not part of the distribution. non-free distributed by
Debian. I want to clean Debian of non-free. The distribution doesn't
need cleaning. Debian does.
> > Nobody is removing software from beneath the users. Even my
> > resolution states that we still support users that choose to use
> > non-free software.
> I don't want to add more fuel to this fire, but as many before me stated -
> it is impossible to support software which has been expelled from the Debian
> infrastructure - one excludes the other.
You are playing pedantic games with "support". While we may or may
not be held responsible for software formally in non-free, we will
still support the use of non-free software.
> > So they use apt to get it, just like they do now. They have to
> > download it now anyway, as it's not part of the distribution.
> That wasn't clear when you posted your original GR. I suggest to better
> express your thoughts for the next time having in mind the ugly flamewar
> that resulted from your original posting.
It was clear since before this discussion even started. It's in the
Social Contract now!
> software (denying it would be *hiding the truth*), we *do not* advise it to
> be used on the user's machine, but we *do* provide the latter with the
> necessary infrastructure to obtain the software if so the user desires.
> Where's hiding the truth in that picture?
This is different from what you said before, and even so, would still
require an amendment to the Social Contract.
> many pieces of non-free software (povray, netscape, JDK and probably many
> more) are a) required part of many systems, b) currently not replacable by
> any free software. You suggested Mozilla to replace Netscape - but it's not
If the case is a), then you suggest that Debian is shipping an
incomplete system now, since the Debian system does not include them.
Not only that, but many other Unices do not include them either.
If the case is b), people can still download them and use them on
Debian.
> ready yet. Proposing some resolution not based on facts isn't quite honest,
> wouldn't you say? When we have all the software to replace *all* the
> non-free one, then we have the moral right to say to our users: "There is no
But you know, people will keep inventing non-free software and
uploading it to Debian. We'll never reach that point. It's a bit
dishonest of you to imply that we will, isn't it?
> > I find it horrid that Debian developers are suggesting that having
> > Debian support only Free Software is a fanatic act! Debian *started*
> > like this and went that way for some time.
> No, please, don't twist my words. I didn't call removal of the non-free
> software a fanatic act. I merely stated that the way it is done bears
What do you mean wrt the way it is done? If you support it but not
how it is done, why not stop arguing about the premise and suggest
something constructive for the implementation?
Reply to: