[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: your mail

On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 15:34, Marek Habersack wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 03:04:39PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig scribbled:
> > of which (in the case of Debian) is to only upload stuff that meets the
> > DFSG to main.
> So the correct solution would be to move the software to non-free and not
> remove it from main. That's the difference between extremism and compromise
> you seem to fail to notice.

Wait, so we have it in both non-free and main? What's the point of that?

> > You also said that you would not object to someone including e.g.
> > AutoCAD in Debian if we got permission. You didn't qualify this with
> I wouldn't.
> > "and if the DFSG was modified". You even went so far as to again call
> why would I? We have non-free.

Non-free is not a part of the Debian distribution; moving things from
main to non-free removes them from the Debian distribution. Do you
disagree? This thin semantic line is the only thing that allows the
project to distribute non-free software at all.

> > those who would oppose this unreliable. Now, I don't consider myself
> Let me quote the SC again, my friend:
>  Works that do not meet our free software standards
>  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not
>  conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib"
>  and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works.
> By _removing_ the non-free software you break the SC. So if AutoCAD was
> uploaded to non-free, it would be fine by the code of the SC. And SC is
> superior to DFSG, as stated in the point 4 of SC (the fragment about our
> users being the priority).

Yes, it would be fine, if it was uploaded it non-free. But it's still
not in Debian, then, and it was never uploaded to Debian.

> > unreliable, but I sure as hell don't want to see an enormous piece of
> > non-free software (in *every* sense of the word) in Debian.
> You can be even more sure YOU don't want to see it. But then I seriously
> doubt you understand the SC. You don't matter here, the users matter - they
> take precedence of you and your opinions (and mine, too, of course).

*I* am a user of Debian. I had been a user of Debian for years before I
became a DD. I used Debian because it was (or at least, as more non-free
software was found and removed, progressed towards being) 100% free
software; I know many people (some of whom are DDs, most of whom are
not) who use Debian for the same reason. I even know someone who doesn't
run Debian, but uses its source packages because they know Debian has
done the work of removing non-free software from them. Maintaining our
promise of being 100% free software is part of our obligation to our

> > This debate has happened dozens of times before over the past few years.
> > I have no wish to have it again. Please go read the -legal archives, and
> > try to rebut the points there.
> If you have no wish to have it again, then DO not fucking start it. A little
> bit of consequence in actions, my friend. And I have better things to do
> than reading the archives of debian-legal.

Reading the archives of debian-legal will take less time than acting
them out yet again.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: