Re: Flame against non-free burning, time to think.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:10:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:37:34PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi, You are writing in the blazing fast speed :)
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:25:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:07:04PM -0500, Mike Dresser wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Clearly, 2.7% is too high a threshhold for some. How small shall the
> > > > > propotion get before we're not screwing our users by dumping non-free?
> > > > > 2.5%? 2.0% 1.5%? 1.0% 0.001%?
> >
> > I do not think % shall be the criteria.
>
> What should be, then?
If existence of those are expressed by at least by the one DD with
conviction and it drains no resource of others, let it live its life
until he gives up. Why you are in such a rush.
> > I do not understand point you are making.
> >
> > You had choice between mutt and pine. You chose mutt. Several factors
> > affected it but "Free" was one of the deciding factor. After all it was
> > your personal choice and nobody forced you to do this even in remote
> > sense. I think that is the way it should be for everyone.
>
> Nothing about John's GR would render Pine unavailable.
That is true.
Let's think that an author puts relatively minor DSFG violation terms
but it is useful to some debian user/DD, this resolution closes gate for
this kind of new softwares to enter non-free. Similar mutt/pine
situation may occur again. So my argument still holds.
> > Do not you want everyone to enjoy the same freedom and choice you
> > enjoyed? Just because you are through or majority of DD are through
> > with pine, mutt should not be forced to the minority of USERs who
> > needs/wants to use non-free pine or even should feel like to be forced
> > to use mutt.
>
> Nothing about John's GR would render Pine unavailable.
...
> > Even if Debian drops support for non-free, I understand Debian is not
> > forcing people to use Free software theoretically. After all people can
> > get those software elsewhere. But from USER's viewpoint, if Debian push
> > FREE idea too much by dropping non-free, users will feel like they are
> > forced to swallow MAJORITY of Debian's opinion. I think it will taste
> > bad and this kind of approach will not help FREE software at all. If
> > you consider the perception of Debian integrity as a factor to remove
> > non-free, this is one to consider.
>
> I'd rather not deprive users of the choice to vote with their feet if
> they don't like the outcome of a vote on the proposed General
> Resolution.
Did I say "I want to deprive right to vote"? My intent is not to
deprive of those voting right but asking people to use restrain. I am
reminding people that this GR is not a popularity contest and its
binding result is something we need to live with as a project. Whoever
voting for GR needs to consider its consequences including collateral
damages. I hope this explanation clarifies your concern.
I will simply tell others to vote it down even if they think world
without non-free is great. Passing such a GR is negative to the free
software in general as its perception by the user and its impacts to the
user.
> > The judgment of the "LAST DAY" should be left to the USER.
> I'm not sure what place Christian apocalypticism has in this discussion.
Oh, sh--t. This words had a special meaning.... I am non-practicing
agnostics. It did not ring me. I am simply talking the last day of the
software used by the user and user decide not to use it any more.
(BTW, my first exposure to the word "apocalyp*" was the movie title.)
> > In practical terms, this means until the last day its sponsor DD stop
> > supporting it in non-free or the USER decide to switch himself
> > earlier.
>
> By your own reasoning, a decision by a Debian Developer to stop
> supporting a non-free package, and requesting its removal from the
> archive, is just as much a betrayal of the users as this GR is.
Come on Branden, you are debating for the sake of debate.
Look, I am giving much favorable terms to the user with my approach. (Am
I right to assume that if another DD volunteer to take over non-free, he
can continue?) In this way, we only need one DD who volunteer to
support non-free package. It is not ruled by simple majority. If the
last supportive DD goes, I would say Debian exhausted its resource to
support user and terminated its support after all measure was taken. So
you can not describe this as betrayal since due process is taken.
Yes I know you can argue GR is one form of due process. It is true.
But I am offering the user to have somewhat very favorable term than
simple majority. That is the tolerance shown by the moral majority.
(Wait a minutes, this word also had some special meaning. Please take
this word as its face value without any latent meanings. In Debian,
moral majority should be believing in FREE software,)
Oh, second thoughts. I keep saying "until the last one DD to support
...." but I can relax this requirement to be few fixed number of
supporters with one package maintaining DD. We do not want some strange
package in our archive whether in main or non-free. This makes more
reasonable play field.
> > The sheer idea of making this kind of transition by some kind of
> > majority rule is very saddening.
>
> The prevention of this transition by a minority -- even a minority of
> one, as your approach would have it -- seems even worse.
Social tolerance is the issue. Just because everyone goes to church on
Sunday in small town, they can not vote to make a law to force it.
(At least anymore) Jews may want to go theirs on Saturday and a person
like me may wish to warship great American TV church show for the cultural
experiences on both days at home while sipping beer.
Of course, if there is severe damage caused by the action and majority
feels it is unjust, they can forbid those action by law. Animal
cruelty to dogs are forbidden everywhere. But cooking live turtle or
crab are another issue. The cultural difference arguments allowed
majority to feel uncomfortable but let the local Chinese business to do
business as usual in San Francisco.
The new addition of non-free to the archive is as bad an action as
beating dog? Or prohibiting new non-free is as bad an action as making
law to attend church on Sunday? I think reality is neither.
At the same time, I think the damage of non-free is relatively small.
(Ok, ok, ... it is a debatable point where you and me may diverge.)
This is why I am calling for the tolerance to prevail and asking you to
join this tolerant group.
> > I am begging you to reconsider your position. Promotion of FREE
> > software is what we all want to do.
> And that's what Debian is for. Our users and Free Software.
> Non-free software is not one of Debian's priorities.
Sure.
> Non-free software is deserving of caretakers who don't feel it is
> compromised.
Tolerance is compromise in its nature. People with moral high grounds
usually show tolerance and they get respected for it. Do not you want
to be one of them. I want to be one of them.
> > I can live with such idea as the one Manoj mentioned to make install of
> > non-free software to trigger some messages to remind people.
>
> I am not in favor of guiltware or nagware. I am in favor of educated
> decisions. If we cease our distribution of non-free software, it is
> likely that the portion of our userbase that is concerned with non-free
> software will educate itself very quickly, likely with our help.
That is true to some extent. Nagware as you call may also counter
productive. Anyway, this was where I can give in to make you reconsider
some option. If you do not like this, so be it.
...
> > If some one like you who are concerned can provide a FREE replacement
> > recommendation infrastructure (some kind of replacement list which
> > prompt people before installing), it will be quite amusing toy to
> > install.
>
> At this point I don't have enough interest in such a project to permit
> it to sideline the other things I work on, like XFree86.
I do not blame you. To some extent, burden of proof for non-free to be
included shall be on the non-free software maintainer's side.
...
> > Caring about FREE software is not forcing others to use it by GR.
> It is impossible for passage of John's General Resolution to force
> anyone to use Free Software.
Yes, they may get non-free elsewhere. But closing gate for the new
non-free certainly makes impression.
> > By the way, numerically non-free has increased but look into the ratio
> > within archive and growth rate. The share of FREE software is
> > increasing.
>
> Yes. So? It looks like the non-free section is getting larger and
> larger, and more deserving of a team of shepherds that can take proper
> care of it. It is, however, not in Debian's charter to do so.
To some extent, true. I only ask tolerance.
> > If you consider increase of DD which is bringing many
> > softwares and stringent License review which has pushed some archives to
> > the non-free, increase in number is not so much we need to worry. It is
> > healthy growth which is one third of FREE counterparts. non-free's
> > impact to the archive s decreasing. Aren't you happy with the number?
>
> No, not really. It means to me that the compromise of 1997 is getting
> more and more unwieldy. If non-free had shrunk to zero by now, or
> looked as if it were going to soon, I would not be concerned. Last time
> this dispute came up, in summer 2000, I decided it would be interesting
> to see where things stood next time people started arguing about it.
> "Maybe," I thought, "non-free will have shown signs of withering to its
> own demise."
>
> It hasn't.
Too bad you are not happy.
> > > Anyway, what concerns me about the demands that non-free be kept until
> > > there is a "replacement" in free is exactly the argument you're
> > > proposing. You want much more than just a replacement -- you want a
> > > clone. That's setting the bar awfully high. With that logic people
> > > wouldn't migrate from Windows to Linux in the first place.
> >
> > So you think making non-free expelled by GR will move more people from
> > WINDOWS to LINUX? I do not understand your point.
>
> My point is that people often don't need a perfect clone of a piece of
> software to switch from one to another -- they just need something that
> gets the job done.
That is your personal judgment. I would like to have more user using
and enjoying Debian even if they use non-free package to do that. I may
need to use non-free evil empire Japanese font in my X.
> However, we still have users of (for example) Pine, Netscape 4.77, and
> mpg123 who appear to feel that none of the several mail user agents and
> web browsers are insufficient. I don't know what is found wanting in
> mpg321.
Patience please. GR will not change them either.
> > Also you mentioned in other thread, "relaxing rule for main to include
> > historical semi-free softwares while expelling rest of non-free" is not
> > a good idea. Then we really compromise our 100% free promise. What
> > ever historical or stupid licensing reasons exist, non-free is non-free.
>
> Are you saying you agree with me?
I was trying to say: Also you mentioned in other thread, "relaxing rule
for main to include historical semi-free softwares while expelling rest
of non-free". (I may have misunderstood you over this. You seem to be
proposing basically "no new non-free".)
I think any kind of contamination to the main is not a good idea since
it dilutes pureness of main. I do not want DSFG to be relaxed for the
Debian main. But let non-free to float around in ftp as long as some DD
thinks needed. That's me.
> > If you find some program which should not be in our archive, file a bug
> > report on them with clear technical or legal reasons. Existence of
> > replacement or similar program is not enough, though.
>
> As you said above, even one user of a non-free package is enough reason
> for Debian to keep distributing it, in your view.
Yes, I am for Debian FTP site to keep distributing non-free in a
segregated section called non-free. Some program have GPL violation or
illegal in US, then we need to drop it. That is separate issue. Also
if they have buffer overflow bug and equivalent or superior free
counterpart exists, I think it is fair game for individual attack by the
bug report. That is one way to make "the last non-free friendly" DD to
get sick of it and orphan it. AS long as harassment is limited within
technical nature, it is fair game.
I know this puts burden on the other side and usually not done quickly.
> It does not appear that the opponents of the GR are perfectly united.
Nothing is united. We live in a diverse world. That's why we need
tolerance. Diversity and tolerance enrich society.
Cheers.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: