Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
John Goerzen wrote:
>
> Hello Steven,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful mail. Let me first state that I'm not familiar
> with *angband, so please bear that in mind. Now, on to my responses:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0000, Steven Fuerst wrote:
> > I'd like to see Zangband, Angband, and Moria still be apt-gettable.
>
> I think you stand a good chance of that happening even if my proposed
> resolution passes.
How can you be so sure? You don't seem to have announced an alternative
server system yet.
>
> > I use debian, and have over the past three years - but I really can't
> > see how removing these essentially open-source projects from debian
> > helps in any way. I am already attempting to rewrite most of the
> > Zangband source so that the license can be changed to GPL - but
> > forceably removing it from my distribution because I can't code fast
> > enough makes me angry. Robert Ruhlmann (the 'upstream' maintainer of
>
> Well, the first thing I should point out is this: (to those that would
> flame me for mentioning it again, we're not talking about a Debian developer
> here...)
>
> As things stand today, the Debian distribution already does not contain
> non-free software. That is, our operating system, CDs, etc. do not have
> that software. Our FTP site and mirror networks, however, do carry
> non-free. So, to be precise, Zangband had never been a part of the Debian
> distribution.
There is one small problem with this neat definition of what constitutes
debian. Due to the wonders of this program called 'apt-get' it is
possible to install the distribution once, and then forever update it
via this wonderful invention called the internet. Which basically means
that what is on the CD's isn't important at all. I happen to only own
the Slink CD's - but yet manage to run Sid as up to date as the
ftp.uk.debian.org mirror. As far as I'm concerned, debian is what is on
my machine now. ;-)
>
> > Angband) has already changed distributions from Debian to Gentoo due to
> > silliness like this. I can see myself following if this project heads
> > towards the direction of idealism, instead of facing reality and
> > realising that some open source code happens to predate the debian
> > mission statement.
>
> This sounds like a quibble with DFSG, the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
> rather than with my proposal.
Um, no. It is to do with the removal of a whole set of useful programs
from the debian mirror system. My complaint has nothing to do with DFSG
at all.
> As it is, the license for Zangband quite clearly excludes use in corporate
> settings. While we may quibble on what is "free enough," the fact remains
> that for a substantial number of people, that license is not free enough.
Nope - here is the license in question:
/*
* ANGBAND may be copied and modified freely as long as the above
* credits are retained. No one who-so-ever may sell or market
* this software in any form without the expressed written consent
* of the author Robert Alan Koeneke.
*/
(Where Robert Koeneke is currently uncontactable by the angband
community.)
This prevents debian putting the games (Moria, Angband and Zangband) on
CD and selling the CDs. However, it does not prevent these open source
programs from being on the mirror network that debian provides, allowing
many people to download and install these wonderful games for free.
> Now you are obviously free to choose whatever license you like for software
> you produce.
Correct - which is why nearly all recent angband (and angband variant)
maintainers have joined together to release all their changes to the
source in a dual Angband/Moria - GPL license. Eventually, when no
original code remains, then the games can be relicensed under the GPL.
However, Zangband is 250Kloc and Angband is not much less, which means
that this project is going to take years to complete at the current rate
of progress.
See http://www.thangorodrim.net/development/opensource.html for more
details.
> Debian, as a project, has decided that our distribution will
> include only Free software that meets a certain set of guidelines -- as we
> are free to do. We decided back in 1997 that keeping the distribution
> populated solely with Free software was a better way to promote the
> long-term quality, breadth, and vitality of our operating system.
However, it doesn't just do that. In addition, it also includes extra
stuff on the internet for the benefit of its users.
>
> I appreciate the work of people like you to get code re-licensed under a
> more favorable license such as the GPL. That way, it becomes easier for
> others to contribute to our codebase -- and in this case, it would allow
> businesses to do that.
Um, no. A business can provide a patch to one of the affected games.
They just can't sell it.
> That way, Debian developers can fix bugs in
> packages, no matter who is paying them (if anyone).
You misunderstand the exact technicality here.
>
> > The debian project has to realise it has users and upstream maintainers
> > as well as the people who create packages. Your GR totally ignores this
> > fact.
>
> I don't see how you can say it ignores that. Can you elaborate?
It's simple really. Not everyone has the lofty ideals that you have.
You can satisfy many more people in the world by being slightly more
moderate. I currently have 35 non-free packages on my machine
(according to vrms). Two of them which I am particularly attached to
(xfractint, and zangband) suffer from having relic licenses from the
days before open source became popular. If you relax your ideals
somewhat you'll see that these packages are effectively open source -
but created by people without the lawyers to create a license like the
GPL. Why should these historical large open source projects suffer
simply because they were umoungst the first ever developed?
Steven
Reply to: