Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:35:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:55:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > Among other things, more people get more of their software directly
> > > from the Internet than did in 1997, where distribution via CD-ROMs was
> > > of critical importance. Broadband has not made CD-ROMs irrelevant,
> > > but it has increased the number of people who do network-based
> > > upgrades and installations, instead of waiting for a new CD-ROM to
> > > come out before upgrading their systems.
> >
> > so the reason for changing things now is that it has become too easy for
> > people to get non-free now?
>
> It's not a matter of ease, it's a matter of what people are exposed to
> when they're first exposed to the "Debian" product. In 1997 it was
> probably a CD-ROM or two. Nowadays it's probably a bootstrapping CD-ROM
> or so, and the rest of the distribution is retrieved from the net.
quick back-pedal there. my comments obviously alerted you to the fact
that you'd made a PR blunder.
> > i.e. that the purpose of the GR is to make it difficult and
> > inconvenient for debian users to access non-free.
> >
> > well, that's not exactly surprising but it is nice to see it stated
> > baldly for a change.
>
> It is true that straw men are easier to defeat than the actual
> arguments of one's opponents.
it's even easier to attempt to dismiss points as "straw men" when you
don't have an answer for them. a very useful tactic for you - you don't
have to answer any difficult questions - just dismiss them as straw-men.
> > > The argument over whether we should distribute non-free on our
> > > Official CDs or not was extremely heated and contentious.
> >
> > actually, it wasn't particularly heated.
>
> Those with access to the debian-private archives can check out messages
> posted by Alex Yukhimets and others, and make up their own minds on this
> point.
almost every decision ever made in debian has generated some dissent.
that's how debian works and has always worked. the amount of dissent
generated in this particular case was minimal.
> > but historical accuracy hasn't been your strong point in this argument.
>
> Those with access to the debian-private archives can determine the
> validity of your accusation for themselves.
yes, fortunately they can. those who can be bothered doing so will see
that your glib attempt to gloss over events that you weren't even a
participant in is so far from the truth of the matter that it's
laughable.
> > for example, you've claimed something along the lines that non-free
> > was created so that we could start adding non-free packages to our
> > ftp archive
>
> Nope, actually I have made no such assertion. The "something along
> the lines of" is suggestive of your busy construction of straw men to
> fight.
no, it's indicative of the fact that i didn't want to waste hours
reading through your voluminous posts again to find the exact words you
used and then spend even more time pedantically quibbling about the
meaning of each individual word. perhaps you like to do that sort of
thing, but i've got better things to do with my time.
the "something along the lines of" is there deliberately to alert the
reader that it is NOT a verbatim quotation, it is a paraphrased summary
of some of your previous arguments.
since you seem to be insisting on an example of your fudging of the
truth on this point, the following exchange took only a few minutes to
find. in message <[🔎] 20021114183133.GT22870@apocalypse.deadbeast.net> you
replied to Emile van Bergen:
: > 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.
a quick check of my own archives of debian-devel, debian-user, and
debian-private (dating back to 1995) shows that we were talking about
the non-free section as far back as 1995. probably earlier.
non-free wasn't created in 1997. we've always had some nonfree software
in the ftp archive and it was separated out into it's own section at
least as early as 1995. removing non-free from the archive certainly
would be *artificially* making it harder to use & support non-free.
like i said, historical accuracy is not your strong point.
btw, there were under 200 messages in the June 1997 thread where we
discussed and decided on the Social Contract & DFSG. in stark contrast
to even the least controversial discusson on d-d or d-p today, it was
remarkably free of animosity. no conflict, just a bunch of people
working together to produce a document without any holes in it. debian
was much more civilised back then.
> > also, there are some non-free packages that Debian could legally
> > distribute on CD that can't be distributed by the for-profit
> > companies that burn and sell debian CDs. we didn't want to cause
> > any legal hassles for redistributors.
>
> *shrug* Shouldn't be any harder to solve this problem than it was to
> handle "non-US".
and you claim to have read the archives of debian private when we
discussed this issue? if you did, you must have some kind of
comprehension problem.
it's a lot harder because there aren't just two categories (DFSG free vs
non-free), or four categories (including free non-US and non-free
non-US), each program in non-free has its own reason(s) for being in
there. some can be distributed by for-profit CD vendors, some not, some
can't be used for military purposes, some can only be used for education
and/or or research. each program in non-free would have to be
individually assessed for each type of distributor and/or user.
> > mostly, though, it's because no-one cares enough about non-free to
> > go through it and sort out which packages can be distributed on CD
> > and which can't.
>
> People only wake up and care about non-free when someone proposes that
> Debian stop distributing it.
finally! you're beginning to see the pattern.
people don't have to like or want non-free software in order to object
to bigoted fascists who try to enforce their ideological choices on
everyone else by censoring alternate choices out of existence.
freedom doesn't come from taking away choice.
> > > 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.
> >
> > changing your stripes in mid-argument isn't very believable.
>
> I'm trying to find out if those who oppose the GR actually stand for
> something, or just against things.
yes, i stand for tolerance and acceptance that different people can and
will make different choices about free software, and i stand for
supporting our users in whatever choices they make.
i stand against fascist enforcement of anyone's one true way to
redemption through software purity. as i've noted before that kind of
bigoted zealotry disgusts me.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: