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 users. > > 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