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

Re: Dissatisfied w/Debian? Make something 'pure'.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:26:26AM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> > I said then and say now:  Either we
> > acknowledge we have non-free software or we get rid of it.  Anthony's
> > suggestion that we move non-free to a new location is a good alternative
> > and has the desired effect of making it clear that non-free (and contrib
> > for that matter) are THERE, but aren't part of Debian.
> > 
> I *really* was going to stay out of this, being a non-DD, but your
> statement above really mystifies me:
> Currently, non-free *is* acknowledged, right?  It's acknowledged in the
> Social Contract; it's acknowledged when the install asks if you want
> sources.list to point to non-free; it's acknowledged here:


> So the existence is acknowledged and the non-Debian nature of it is
> acknowledged.  Seems really, really clear and very apt (no pun intended)
> to me, at least.
> Given your concerns, how are they not currently addressed?  Why the
> necessity for any change whatsoever based on these concerns?

It was proposed some months ago by Wichert in what I felt was a knee-jerk
reaction to RMS saying that Debian was not completely free because Debian
did reference non-free software.

It was my opinion that it was not enough for RMS that Debian did not
include non-free software on its CDs, but that Debian not even tell you
about the non-free software we have.  Wichert's proposal was to move the
software to a different MACHINE like non-free.debian.org or something like
that and not have it mentioned in the sources.list or anything.  Mirrors
would have to explicitly mirror it seperately.  Users would have to edit
their apt configuration to include it.

It was IMO a very stupid idea.  Debian is about free software and having a
good distribution.  Nowhere in those goals does hiding non-free from our
users fit in.  I said then (and still believe now) that if we are to have
non-free software in Debian - let us have it then.  If we will not have
it, let us not have it.

John wants us to not have it.  Good idea, seems though like there are a
number of technical issues (and a lot of screaming people who aren't
talking about them much) keeping that from happening.  Anthony's
suggestion is much cleaner, even if the results aren't immediate.

> Now JG's concerns are different, I guess.  And radical (in the true
> sense of the word), and probably thus impervious to any argument I could
> make.

There are a lot of free software supporters out there.  We don't agree on
methods or sometimes even ideology.  But we all agree that free software
is a good thing - a very important thing.  And we agree that free software
is right.  Beyond that, we may or may not agree.  John and I have
disagreements over the bsdish style of licensing as I recall, but we both
firmly agree that anything done which makes non-free software unnecessary
is a good, real, and lasting benefit to everyone.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

<Culus> Hhhmmmmmmmm
<Culus> waterbeds for cows
<Culus> eleet
<cas> Culus: why would a cow need a waterbed?
<Culus> cas:  To be comfy warm

Reply to: