On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:46:42PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:31:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I am not asserting the truth of the statement implied by my question. > > I gathered as much, and I think it's a counterargument against the piece > you blockquoted. Well, you've lost me now. What are you trying to say? > > Some of us will feel compelled to start or stop working on free > > alternatives to non-free software if this GR passes, and other people > > won't feel any differently at all. > > Ok, I accept the nuance, but I don't think people will start working > much harder on alternatives when the GR passes. What makes your speculations particularly credible? If opponents of the GR are willing to pour as much purpose, emotion, and drive into non-free packages as they are willing to pour into this discussion, then it doesn't seem to me that the vitality of non-free packages is threatened at all, whether or not they are distributed by the Debian Project. I do admit, however, that there exist people who are far more willing to argue than work. > As long as the number of packages in non-free continues to decline Which it hasn't.[1][2] > > > But I don't think /artificially/ making the use and support of > > > non-free harder will provide any incentive to work harder on Free > > > Software. > > > > "Artificially"? I do not understand how the current state of affairs is > > "natural". It is an artifice deliberately constructed in early 1997. > > Yes. But changing the status quo, making non-free less accessible and > harder for contrib packages to depend upon and provide a coherent whole, > is, at this point, now all infrastructure is in place, quite artificial. Everything we do in Debian is artificial. Except, one might submit, arguing with each other. > > "Artificially raising barriers" makes it sound like you feel that the > > Debian Project has monopoly power in the distribution of Debian packages > > (in the deb(5) sense), and that our actions make or break the entire > > playing field. > > > > Do you feel that way? > > No. I do feel that removal of non-free gives at least as much new work > as it takes away, so that only other reasons remain to change the status > quo. Nothing in the Debian Social Contract compels us to do that which is easy. Our priorities are our users and Free Software. Do any of our developers feel that our users are better served by free software in and of itself? Is freedom worth the sacrifice of any functionaliity, no matter how small? Does non-freeness matter? Do we think that free software is inimical to the needs of our users, either in the short or long terms? Are the requirements imposed by the DFSG just an unwelcome encumbrance on making Debian as good as it could be? Do we really care whether or not we have DFSG-free alternatives to all the packages distributed in non-free? If the answers to the above questions are "no", then you're probably right. The hard work of setting up an alternative resource for non-free Debian packages isn't worth it. The distinction between Debian main and Debian non-free is merely a fig leaf made to appease "zealots" and "bigots", and what we really should be considering is a GR to rewrite the Social Contract to underscore our practicality. The licensing on a piece of software doesn't really matter as long as we can distribute it without cost. If, on the other hand, the answers to the questions above are "yes", then there must be some labor that we are willing to undertake to make those principles concrete. We can't improve the lot of our users or of Free Software by just lying on the couch and letting inertia push us along. > The Debian Project /does/ have a monopoly power in what goes through > its great QA process, gets tracked by BTS and distributed through its > mirrors. How are we preventing other people from competing with us? > If it consciously decides to stop distributing something, and that > /cost/ effort instead of giving less effort, then I'd say there must > be /very/ good reasons for it. I take it that you do not feel that the vision of Debian's users being able to do everything they want on their computers with Free Software is not a very good motivation. > As Adam said, if it's just the confusion people seek to end, then please > rename main to Debian to make it more clear what the Debian distribution > is, and lets get over it. How do you know that would solve the problem of confusion? Another person in this thread apparently feels that anything he can apt-get comes from Debian. He probably wouldn't learn anything directly from either solution. I submit that the GR is about *more* than just user confusion. > > > If it were only that easy to get work and dedication from people by > > > kidding them. I think that people spend all that time and energy only > > > when they see a /real/ value in doing it. And writing Free Software has > > > such value. But merely making existing non-free software less visible > > > doesn't improve the value of writing free alternatives as perceived by > > > potential developers. > > > > You assert this without foundation. You assert this to be the case for > > everyone; I don't. Have you figures to back up your claims? > > Perhaps it's a bit broad, and projecting how I feel about developing > software. However, suppose I'd maintain a package such as qmail, and I > personally feel it's free enough to package it, I wouldn't feel in the > least more compelled to help making Postfix better if qmail would not be > distributed through the Debian mirrors anymore. And although I can't > prove it at this point, I do feel that I wouldn't be alone in this. I take it, then, that you disagree with Eric Raymond's "scratch an itch" theory. I don't (however, I do think it's not the *only* motivating force behind voluntary software development). I think there are itches to be scratched. * Making one or more non-free packages less available, or less obviously available, as would likely be the result of this GR's passage, might make some people feel an itch they hadn't felt before. Some of them will be motivated to scratch it. * Helping people to understand that that which is in non-free is not part of Debian and does not possess the virtues that the software in the Debian system possesses, might cause people who care about those virtues to feel an itch they hadn't felt before, and motivate them scratch, even when they *do* know that they can just fetch a salve for their irritation from some URL. > > > That's that piece is entirely unpersuasive. > > > > If your thesis is grounded on faith rather than evidence, I doubt there > > is anything anyone can do to persuade you! > > You can. I just feel the cost/benefit ratio of this GR is severely skewed. Who among us has never made a contribution to Debian because we were irritated or annoyed with a bug or misfeature, or wanted to see something done and didn't see anyone else doing it? I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself, and say that both of those motivations have driven many of my contributions to Debian in the past. Is Debian about wares, or about freedom? Do we better serve our users by just giving them whatever wares they ask for, or helping them to make educated decisions about the software they install? Again, these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely curious what people think. If there are that many people who utterly disagree with my messages, then I think we should see a more complex ballot when John's General Resolution comes to a vote. If freedom is really just icing on the cake of software that can be obtained free of charge, our Social Contract should be rewritten to say what we mean instead of misleading people. If nothing else, such a course of action might help to dampen the charges of fanaticism that Debian is oft tarred with in forums like Slashdot. [1] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021114103645.GA943@kleinmann.com> [2] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021115040651.GB32282@azure.humbug.org.au> -- G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. branden@debian.org | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpEnMf4OuNfJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature