Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:31:23AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Case 1: foo = nvidia binary modules
> > Answer: Because these modules are binary-nonly and therefore
> > undebuggable for everyone except Nvidia. They give you a
> > much better 3D performance, but they sometimes lead to
> > kernel crashes.
> > Case 2: foo = some documentation
> > Answer: Because the document contains a invariant section in which
> > the author says he dedicates this manual to his dead father.
> > In the first case you might have convinced a system administrator that
> > non-free software has serious disadvantages.
> > In the second case you'll hear a loud laugher.
> Maybe, since you conspicuously omitted the "and therefore" part in
> case 2; the practical problems with invariant sections have been well
> explored. (I'm not going to waste my time digging up discussions about
> them for you, since you'll just complain that they're not an "official
> position statement". Find them yourself.)
It's not about a "and therefore" in the text I wrote.
You missed my main point:
Most people can't be convinced by reading a statement what Debian
considers free and what not. But they can be convinced by technical
arguments why free software is superior.
You can convince people that non-free software is bad if you explain
stability problems with the nvidia binary modules or the reason why
majordomo was removed from non-free to them.
The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or
with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you
explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences
between free and non-free software are pretty small.
> Glenn Maynard
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed