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

Re: Packaging proprietary software

On Sun, 2014-10-12 at 14:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:14:23AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > We're not the FSF here.
> > 
> > I don't understand this sentence, could you explain what you mean?
> I was hoping you wouldn't ask that ;-)
> Anyway, since you did:
> The FSF has a stated goal of wanting to eradicate all non-free software.
> That's fine, that's their right, and if they manage to do that, more
> power to them.
> However, their policy of telling people that *using* non-free software
> (as opposed to writing it) is a bad idea irks me the wrong way
> sometimes. Yes, if one has options, I agree that choosing the free
> alternative over the non-free one (even if the non-free one has more
> features, or is easier to use, or whatever) is preferable.
> Unfortunately, sometimes one simply does not have those options.
> Sometimes there just *isn't* a free alternative for the job that one has
> to do. In the utopia that the FSF wants to reach, that wouldn't be the
> case, but we live in the real world, and in the real world usually a
> computer is something to get a job done; and sometimes that
> unfortunately means you get to choose between "use the non-free
> thing", "go look for a different job", or "starve". The latter is
> usually a bad idea, the second isn't always all that easy, so that may
> leave you with having to do the first.
> I respect you wanting to prefer the (in my opinion) worse option on that
> list, but please realize that not everyone shares that preference. In
> that light, just going "ignoring your question, you said non free, which
> is EV1L!!, you should fix that first and then come back" like you did[1]
> makes people feel rather unwelcome. In addition, while doing so is in
> line with the FSF's policies (after all, non-free is evil, so why bother
> with making people who don't want it feel welcome), it isn't in line
> with Debian's SC#5.
> Thanks,
> [1] I realize that's a bit of a hyperbole and that you certainly didn't
>     mean it that way. However, I do think that is what your answer will
>     result in people feeling.

IMHO, if you start rejecting people, people will have no other option
but to reject the idea to use Debian, because simply put, the software
they require... can't be found on Debian.

I do agree that the non free software, could or should be stored on
"alternate repos", handled by "someone else", to store, distribute and
possibly verify quality of the Software, ensuring it runs on Debian, it
haves no "viruses, malware, bots or trojans inside". But someone on
Debian should "coordinate" with this "external repo(s)" to ensure their
commitment to the quality. Something like "Microsoft's Certified
Solution Providers", or the "Canonical's Partners' Multiverse", or

But this External Repos should be available as APT sources, if people
"choose" to "activate" them as Software Sources... Hopefully Debian
knows better than to be "the one that throws away honest

Cheers! to everyone, and please continue supporting SC#5...

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

Reply to: