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

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

Here is a question that has not been discussed.

They way I read the proposal, and the way some have interpreted it on this
list, is that the BTS will still allow filing of bugs against non-free
packages.  I must be reading that wrong...

One thing that having non-free on Debian servers does, is provide the one
"official true" version and the one "official true" maintainer of a
non-free package.

Thus, if I continue to maintain "simh" and someone else packages "simh"
again (obviously because they couldn't find it in the archive) then whom's
bugs against whom's packages will be allowed into the BTS?

Finally I can't resist a little rabble rousing by pointing out
double-speak, like "removing users options, is increasing users freedom".
I believe free software is the correct choice, and I believe in making it
easy for users to make the choice, by an easy side by side comparison.  If
one is afraid users will see non-free contains "better" software than
"main" then fix the free software, don't try "security thru obscurity".

Also I fear this will place the project at risk because people will be
inclined to "bend the rules" about licensing, witness the recent debates
about documentation.  Deletion of non-free would encourage people to break
the law and we should not (in general) do that.

And as a last jab, we need no resolution to remove non-free, anyone whom
wants to get rid of non-free merely has to personally write a replacement
for every individual non-free package, or get upstream to change the
license, and then submit a bug to ftpmaster to remove the non-free package.
Once non-free is empty, then there will be little complaint when the
section is removed (or renamed to the ever popular "data" section, whatever
happened to that?).  As long as there is one non-free package in WNPP that
hasn't been adopted, rewritten, and the old non-free version removed, by
the opponents of non-free, then they have no credibility to me.  I believe
they are trying to take the easy way out.  I would like to see some
evidence that any effort has been placed at removing non-free on a
individual package basis.  I apologize in advance to any of the
"anti-non-free" people whom have done this kind of work, that I was not
aware of.  Of course if they have been successfully working on that, then
why bother with a resolution, just keep chugging away until non-free is
empty thru honest means.

Reply to: