Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:52:35AM +0100, Rémi Letot wrote:
>> > Maintenance of the non-free section of the archive and of the
>> > packages within consume a non-zero quantity of resources.
>>
>> ressources.
>
> ? I don't believe I misspelled the word.
Strange, you're the second one to point that out to me, and indeed the
post as seen on the list is not what I sent :
----
> Maintenance of the non-free section of the archive and of the
> packages within consume a non-zero quantity of resources.
ressources.
----
(I hope this time the two lines pass through... :-)
>> And maintaining the same level of service to users (ie recreating the
>> archive structure specifically for non-free, mirroring it,...) would
>> consume much more ressources than the current situation.
>
> That argument makes sense if Debian's mission is to make as much
> software available to our users as cheaply as possible.
>
> However, this mission is not clearly expressed in the Social Contract.
> Should it be?
The Social Contract as I understand it specifies two ultimate goals :
free software, and the users. I think that removing non-free from the
archive would currently be a disservice to the users, and would do
nothing in favor of free software.
>> > The Social Contract makes it clear that the packages outside of
>> > Debian main enjoy "second-class" status. They are not the primary
>> > focus of our efforts, but a diversion that was, in 1997 deemed to be
>> > worthwhile for the sake of utility to our users.
>>
>> What has changed since then ?
<couic> : non-free is already not on the official cds.
> Why do we compel our users to jump through the hoop of getting non-free
> packages from a Debian mirror? Some of them have slow network
> connections, or none at all, and this decision inconveniences them
> greatly.
This point is partially valid. The fact that non-free is not on the
official cds is indeed a complication for users, and debian seems to
have come to the conclusion that the benefits outweight the price. But
removing the section from the official archive, and depriving it of
the facilities provided by debian (the project) would be much worse.
Currently those packages are maintained by official debian
maintainers, they comply to debian policy, the bugs are collected in
the BTS, security is handled, and so on. Remove non-free from the
debian archive, at the same time you cut off all that infrastructure
from them, which is the biggest disservice you could do to users.
For the moment I know I can download these packages an be confident
that they are "good". Force them to be anywhere else, and I can't have
that guarantee anymore.
So yes you render them more difficult to find and install, but most
importantly you deprive them of the debian infrastructure and the
"guarantee" that comes with it. (technical guarantee)
>> BTW, I have seen that netscape is not considered usefull
>> anymore. Well, let me say that it is to me right now. I need it to
>> connect to my bank's online systems. They are in the process of
>> modifying it to work with mozilla (or netscape6), but it hasn't
>> happened yet. I know the situation is specific, but such is my use of
>> non-free software.
>
> I hope you realize that Debian dropping Netscape packages from the
> mirror network would not force them off of your system.
Of course (anyway if I understood correctly what aj posted on
announce, that example looses somewhat it's weight :-), but security
updates (or for that matter any kind of update) are stopped if those
packages are not handled anymore. And as stated above, even if they
are handled outside of debian (the project), they loose much of what
they are worth.
<couic>
>> If users tend to be confused about the situation of the non-free
>> section wrt debian, I think a better strategy would be to clearly
>> document and advertise it.
>
> I think it has been.
As a point for why this GR was proposed in the first place is that
users tend to forget that non-free is not part of debian (the system),
obviously it hasn't been made clear enough. Several possible solutions
have been proposed in this long flamewar : modify apt to clearly
identify non free software, systematically display the license on such
software (except if specifically disabled), add nonfree to the package
names, add links in p.d.o to an explanation,...
Hope this clarifies what I meant,
--
Rémi
Reply to: