Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
#include <hallo.h>
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Nov 17 2002, 06:32:57PM]:
> > > No, not unless you are omniscient. Do you claim omniscience?
> >
> > Of course not, but you should not either!
>
> I have not done so; please do not imply that I have.
Please stop throwing with stones. Thank you.
> > No, that is the reason for stopping all this waste of energy and keep
> > the situation as-is.
>
> So you oppose the very idea that the Developers vote on this proposal,
> even if the General Resolution fails to pass?
Well, let's have the fscking resolution to make most people (that are
heating this silly flame war more and more) shut up.
> > When they will have to search for $SOME_SITE to get acroread, povray and
> > graphviz, this will hurt the reputation, yes.
>
> Does it hurt Debian's reputation that people have to get acroread from
> $SOME_SITE now?
Of course. But you "forgot" the other two ;).
> That may be your feeling, but that's exactly not what the Social
> Contract says:
>
> Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
>
> Nothing in the Social Contract implies that Free Software takes a back
> seat to our users. The Social Contract itself is a contract "with the
> Free Software Community", not with the "non-free software community",
> whatever that might be.
But you won't help anyone removing non-free software. Sure, there may be
a chance that you push some people a bit to write free replacements for
the non-free parts, but how realistic is this expectation? And until
there are no replacements of some non-free program, and their license do
not prohibit the distribution and usage for most people, you are going
to violate the first part of "Our prio..." by removing everythin from
non-free blindly.
> If you feel that Free Software community should be subordinated to the
> needs of our users, then you should propose an amendment to John's
> General Resolution stating that. If he rejects it and it acquires
> sufficient seconds, your amended proposal will appear on the ballot.
I do not care about any such thing. When I have to vote, I will and you
can guess what my choice will be.
> > There is always a bit of violating the social contract when you doom
> > the non-free software without providing a free alternative.
>
> So it violates the Social Contract for us not to provide a Free
> alternative to Mentor Graphics?
What is that? Whatever, it is IMO a violation to drop software without
any real reason except of "non-DFSG, evil, evil, evil" FUD.
> > > You'll have to talk to Adobe about that; acroread is not distributed by
> > > Debian anymore.
> >
> > Oh, well, he really removed the package from the pool few days ago :((
>
> Is that a violation of the Social Contract? Adobe has made it
> practically impossible for us to distribute acroread any longer; does
> that mean they have *forced* us to violate the Social Contract?
He? What are you talking about? Apparently about version 5, but we had
version 4 in the archive which was allowed to be distributed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00005.html
>
> It seems disingenuous to employ falsehoods in support of your position.
As said before, the whole idea of blind removal of non-free tree is IMO
absurd and I wont contribute to this ridiculous flamewar any longer.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
<Angel`Eye> installations anleitung für intelx86 richtig ?
<Salz> Angel`Eye: Kommt auf deinen Rechner an. Wenn du die Antwort nicht weiß,
ist sie ja.
-- #debian.de
Reply to: