Hi, On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:27:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. Great speech, seriously. However, it all rests on /one/ single premise, that this "sacrifice for our great cause", the removal of the non-free distribution, will actually help that cause (Our users and Free Software). And I don't accept that premise. > > 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. Again, I don't see how that vision is realistically helped by not distributing software which will remain available through other, much less convenient ways. The /usr/local tree will regain popularity, no doubt. Do you really think .debs will be as widely available if there's no central repository for them? If so, why not give up the main archive as well? > > 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. If your solution to a hurting leg is cutting it off, then fine. It's just not the kind of solution I favour. > He probably wouldn't learn anything directly from either solution. I > submit that the GR is about *more* than just user confusion. Agreed. But I think that the other cause, making non-free obsolete, isn't achieved by simply pruning it from the archive. > > > > 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. Yes, but the itch is slight when compared to the cost of developing alternatives. The itch we cause by removing non-free is big when compared with the cost of keeping it. I see no reason to inflict artificial itches. It's not in the spirit of the social contract (Our Priorities are our Users and Free Software). > 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? I believe people's software needs are ultimately best served by Free Software. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgpZmT1MXxAWx.pgp
Description: PGP signature