Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Friday 15 Nov 2002 6:41 pm, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:22:34PM +0000, Steven Fuerst wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> If it doesn't happen, it says something about how little people value the
> software there, doesn't it?
I think it says more about the difficulty required to set up such a system.
>
> It's not my responsibility to announce something else. I'm not the one
> that wants it.
>
> > 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
>
> All of which is possible whether the servers are hosted by Debian or not.
> I don't see any point here.
Well - yes, you could have a seperate server for every single package in
debian...
I count 1685 packages installed on my machine - and that would require a fair
number of lines in /etc/apt/sources.list
Surely you have to realise the convenience of having a relatively small number
of lines in that file. This is one of the things that makes debian such a
pleasure to actually use.
> > > 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.
>
> Why is it important to you that Debian in particular be distributing
> software that it does not include in its distribution? Why should Debian
> be extending charity to software that, by definition, we cannot include in
> our distribution?
The problem is your definition of what is in the distribution isn't quite the
same as what users (like me) actually think it means. If you want, all you
really need to do is remove your 'non-free' line from sources.list, and the
packages you don't want to know about will disappear. Other users may just
like the convenience of editing one config file to get the ability to
download all of this useful software in a simple way.
>
> > Nope - here is the license in question:
>
> You only quoted part of the license. A little lie by ommission, perhaps?
No - the part I quoted is from the original Moria license which now lives in
angband.h
> > * 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.
>
> debian/copyright ALSO states:
Correct - this exists on each .c file, but...
> Copyright (c) 1997 Ben Harrison, James E. Wilson, Robert A. Koeneke
>
> This software may be copied and distributed for educational,
> research, and not for profit purposes provided that this
> copyright and statement are included in all such copies.
> Other copyrights may also apply.
this later license is pretty much overruled by Ben and James joining into the
angband opensource initiative. (Ben Harrison did a large rewrite of the code
several years ago.) The only real problem is with the truely ancient code
and copywrited text in the game - which comes from Robert A. Koeneke and
falls under the Moria license above. ;-)
> > 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.
>
> It seems to me that even that may be a problem -- there is no grant to copy
> and distribute for anything other than:
>
> 1. educational
> 2. research
> 3. not for profit
>
> If you are a company hosting a Debian mirror, how exactly do you fall under
> that? What if your mirror features banners? (Clearly a "for-profit"
> activity)
Which is why it is in non-free...
>
> What if you are a company that wants to contribute to angband? This
> license seems to restrict that, as I mentioned before.
You still haven't mentioned why being a company is a problem with contributing
though.
> > > 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.
>
> Or even distribute the result at all.
Why? As long as they aren't getting a profit from it...
> Or even copy it, unmodified, for a
> co-worker's computer.
why not?
> That's a hefty restriction -- so hefty, in fact,
> that is seems misleading to claim that they could practically participate.
The 'not for profit' basically means they would not want to participate... not
that they could or could not.
This is one of the problems with a license developed before the GPL existed.
(and the ambiguities like this are one of the many reasons why a large number
of the angband development community are trying to get that license changed.)
> > > That way, Debian developers can fix bugs in
> > > packages, no matter who is paying them (if anyone).
> >
> > You misunderstand the exact technicality here.
>
> Then please, enlighten me.
Anyone can send a developer a patch for a bug, or even fix it themselves.
They just can't sell the result, or the bug-fixes... but now I'm sounding
like a broken record.
> > > > 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
>
> So where do we draw the line? Do we include MS Word by being more
> moderate? What about people that are slightly more moderate than you --
> they could have the same arguments you do -- so why shouldn't we just
> include that? Your argument leads to the inevitable result of allowing
> anything.
Or you could just allow what already exists and not try to move the boundary
at all... ;-) Basically, you are the one who wants change... and it is up to
you to show how your change is good for the people who actually use debian.
As a user myself - I cannot see your logic.
> > (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
>
> You don't need lawyers to do that, and the GPL was around back then.
Um no...
GPLv1 is dated February 1989, Moria was 'born' around about 1983.
Umoria was at version 5.0 by 11th Feb 1989 ;-)
Version 1.0 of fractint was released in September 1988.
> > simply because they were umoungst the first ever developed?
>
> We're not the ones causing that suffering (if indeed not being on
> ftp.debian.org is suffering); it's the license.
Can you imagine the difficulty of trying to change a license on something that
is twenty years old?
Steven
Reply to: