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

Re: your mail

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 04:06:05PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig scribbled:
> 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?
I said _move_. s/not remove/not to remove/ - I guess the missing 'to' caused
the confusion, I'm sorry.

> > > 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.
Yes, I disagree with the notion of non-free not being part of Debian (and
yes, I don't agree with that statement in the SC). And I prefer to have
fully working software in non-free than crippled in main.

> > 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.
Oh, sure. It was only uploaded to the Debian servers, and it is only hosted
in the Debian archive, stored in the Debian debs, maintained by the Debian
developers, it can be installed by running apt-get by pulling it from the
Debian archive. No, it's certainly not in Debian. Let's agree to disagree on
that one, ok?

> > > 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
So am I. What makes you more important?

> 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
And do you know any people who are using Debian because it is a very good
distribution? And because it's technically superior and more reliable than
other Linux distributions? If your only goal is to make Debian 100% free and
enjoy the fact, then I'm starting to have doubts about the future of Debian
should people with such point of view become the majority here. I have been
using Debian mostly because of technical reasons, the freeness of it comes
after that, always. If Debian was a crappy 100% distro, I would never use
it (but I've got a feeling you would).

> 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.
There's another obligation in there which you seem to conveniently ignore -
obligation to support people who:

  create or use both free and non-free works on Debian.

What makes the 100% promise be more important than the above? Your B&W logic
is really disturbing. The world isn't really polarized. Part of the support
for such users as mentioned above is providing them infrastucture and ways
to integrate the non-free software with Debian - by creating debs,
maintaining them, hosting them, providing them on demand to the users.
Removing non-free software from Debian explicitly breaks that promise.

> > > 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.
I will let you write a summary instead, you seem to be well acquainted with


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: