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

Re: Packaging proprietary software, maybe add to clause 5?

I sent the poor guy a link to my bashrc with how to compile
debian binary and source packages then noone has to feel bad :-)

but true, constructive feedback is much better than flaming just
to flame

I bet most of us have tried running non-free at some time,
and seen several reasons, i.e. adobe flash plugin or nonfree wifi firmware

it is a good idea to urge people to reconsider adding non-free binaries
though I think.
maybe that should be in the wiki? (add to clause 5?)

there might be a few number of reasons like he says that source cannot be

I just wouldn't urge him to add it to any pub repos unless it was very used

having a too large non-free repos is not a good thing IMO.

distributing packages offline/directly to customers is still possible even 
if it isn't in the repos.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, Philip Hands wrote:

> Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes:
> >
> >> On 9 October 2014 09:03, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On that point: It is in poor taste to declare up front that you have
> >> > no intention of helping the free software community (which is what
> >> > it means to release proprietary software), and then in the same
> >> > message ask that same community for help in doing this.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It is possible to release the source to your packaging as open source
> >> with instructions on how to download the proprietary code and create
> >> the Debian packages.
> >
> > Assisting someone to install proprietary software is not helping the
> > *free software* community.
> >
> > It may be helping some other community, but not the community of users
> > making an expressly free operating system. This person was specifically
> > asking the community of a free software operating system for help in
> > distributing non-free software. That's what I'm pointing out is in poor
> > taste.
> Given that Debian Developers as a body have agreed to abide by the Social
> Contract[1], clause 5 of which includes:
>   Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support
>   their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as
>   our bug tracking system and mailing lists).
> it's pretty childish to harangue people for asking how best to use the
> infrastructure we provide for exactly this purpose.
> Of course, you're not the first to think that there's something wrong
> with clause 5.  We've had two GRs attempting to change that.  The second
> of which[2] achieved the opposite by attracting a large majority in
> favour of the reaffirmation of clause 5.
> It seems very impolite to use this as an excuse to attack newcomers.
> You don't have to stay here if that makes you unhappy, but if you do
> stay I suggest that you stop whining about it.
> Cheers, Phil.
> [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
> [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
> -- 
> |)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
> |-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
> |(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Reply to: