On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Jeroen Dekkers (jeroen@dekkers.cx) wrote: > > > > By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant > > instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they > > meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And I'm not the only one, I > > know more Debian developers who don't really support non-free and > > would rather see it removed. > > We can all claim to know the intent of the original authors but what > they actually wrote down is what everyone who joins the project is asked > to agree to. Developers are not asked "Have you agreed with the intent of > the authors of the Social Contract?" because (in steps reality) no one > really knows the intent of the original authors except (maybe) the > original authors themselves (who, of course, may have disagreed with > each other in their intent anyway). I merely seeing it as interpreting the contract. In some respects it's just too vague. > There has been debate about that in the past, yes, though I think it's > been more about the actual non-free ftp space and whatnot than about > users being allowed to run non-free software on Debian and expecting to > still be treated with respect and as a user of Debian. Users should be allowed to run non-free software, but Debian shouldn't much waste time and resources on it IMHO. We have to treat non-free users just as normal users, but they should not complain when their non-free software which is not in Debian is buggy. > If you want the Social Contract changed then work on changing it. Do > not act as if Debian follows your 'New Social Contract' instead of the > existing one. You mislead people into thinking you're right when you're > not. I merely interpret the social contract different. IMHO we are both not right or wrong, the social contract is just too vague. Indeed we should fix that, but I've got a lot of things on my TODO list. > > > > To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software > > > > and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free > > > > software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems > > > > he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 > > > > free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those > > > > problems? > > > > > > Nothing is wrong with that. However, that isn't what you said. > > > > I did say it, although a bit unfriendly. > > No, you said 'go somewhere else' to a Debian user asking a question > about a Debian change which broke an application they used. Asking a question whether VMWare supports his version which wasn't the case. I said (in an not-so-friendly manner, I agree) that debian-devel isn't the correct place for that. > That's > quite different from saying "there are 2 free alternatives in Debian" or > any of what else you claimed to have said above. I said there are plex86 and bochs, I said that in that mail and in some other mail in that thread. > > > * Jeroen Dekkers (jeroen@dekkers.cx) wrote: > > > > It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get > > > > the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW) > > > > > > That's the original message you sent which *is* wrong. Debian supports > > > its users regardless of if they run non-free software or not. In fact, > > > we specifically support their running of non-free software and we > > > provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for them. > > > > Does Debian support vmware? So if Debian does support that, where is > > it written down that Debian supports every piece of non-free software? > > Debian supports users running non-free software by way of allowing them > to ask questions on our mailing lists and use our bug tracking system. So debian-devel is the mailing list where people can ask question about patches for non-free software which isn't in Debian? And can they also use the bug tracking system for that? I thought not, but maybe you can prove me wrong. > At the same Debian is a volunteer organization and individual developers > are not required to respond to questions they don't want to. And they are not allowed to state their opinion? And they are not allowed to tell the user what the cause of the problem actually is? IMHO, developers should do that. > > Of course you can say that in the social contract says "Thus, although > > non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use," but if > > I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software > > packages provided by Debian. And this actually my major complaint with > > the social contract, it's too vague to actually agree or disagree with > > it. I just interpretted it in the way I think was meant and agreed, > > because that is a lot easier than trying to change the social > > contract. > > Obviously you have some odd ideas about how to interpret that line. > Debian specifically says "non-free software" is not a part of Debian. > Additionally there exists "free software" which is not a part of Debian. > We support the use of both on Debian systems. We are also kind enough > to even host some non-free software on our sites for the benefit of our > users but that doesn't mean that the "non-free software" our users are > allowed to run is limited to that subset of software. But does that mean they can posts question about problems with that non-free software which are not related to Debian at all (the only relation is that the user runs Debian) to debian-devel? Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpCJroztVARc.pgp
Description: PGP signature