Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> They will if people care as much about that separation as they do about
> separating firmware.
Which effectively still means, that it won't happen for exactly those
reasons I gave you before.
While following the lists, I've noted that several times already in
Debian that good ideas are brought down just because some cabals
within Debian don't like it, typically there are not even real
arguments brought up against rather a lot of talk with usually
ignoring the actual arguments of the other side.
What a pity that this seem to happen here as well.
I think I brought up quite some obvious benefit of splitting of
non-open (or whatever one would call it), so that people can opt-out.
Apparently, there are even plans for doing the same on the small scale
just with firmware. So my idea is apparently not bad, because there
it's done as well just from another point of view (opting-out of
non-free but opting-in to non-free firmware).
Plus, when this is anyway done now or soon, it would be *the*
opportunity to also do it for non-open.
So I've asked several times now, what speaks against the idea, or
whether it would mean much more technical overhead than just splitting
of non-free firmware.
No real answer.
The only things brought up were:
- The name could be confusing, followed by some strange discussion of
what open/free is.
- That potentially other wishes for more non-free/* or non-open/*
arise, which is however purely speculative as of now.
I wouldn't call that any real arguments against, yet apparently it's
impossible to get such proposal into Debian, and it doesn't seem to me
as if this would require extreme amounts of work, or does it?
The argument that one or the other name may be confusing is also quite
weak. The could be the case for non-free or contrib, yet not one
complains here. Everyone simply accepted the fact the users aren't so
stupid after all and probably manage to enter "non-free debian
meaning" in google and find
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html
So let me perhaps ask more directly again:
1: Does Debian assume, that software for which the sources aren't
publicly available can be generally trusted?
If not:
2: What would be the big disadvantages of allowing users to opt-in to
software that is currently in "non-free" and has sources available,
but opt-out of software which is currently in "non-free" as well, but
doesn't have sources available (like for example steam)?
If none:
3: What seems bad about the idea to solve this opt-in/opt-out via a
suite like "non-free", "contrib", "main" (or are these called "archive
areas" and not "suite"), especially when one considers the big
advantage of that solution, namely that such software would then not
even show up in the system?
and
If nothing:
4: Does it seam feasible to find a name for such "archive area", which
doesn't drive users into despair when reading it, but which can be
probably understood by applying some common sense or at least by
reading it up.
If yes:
5: When if not now, where there are already plans to do such a split
off, which requires some work on the backends/mirrors/release
notes/documentation - when would be a better opportunity to do such a
split off (which requires similar work done)?
And perhaps as a further one:
6: As such split off of "non-open" (or whichever better name would be
chosen) can probably only be done by those core developers that
control/maintain these core systems in Debian, what else could a
"normal" person do to get this actually done, than asking politely?
> "open" does not mean "has source available"; "Open Source" is defined
> here: http://opensource.org/osd . (That link may look rather familiar,
> as the OSI based their definition on the DFSG.)
Aside from any re-definitions/interpretations made by OSI respectively
the community, "open source" by the words alone means open source,
which doesn't imply any freeness, or whether it's copyleft or not.
See for example
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for
more thoughts on free vs. open.
Also just because the OpenSource community claims "open source" to
have the meaning which we all commonly assume, doesn't mean that this
belongs to us.
> I don't know of any common shorthand name for "proprietary software with
> source available", but neither "non-open" nor "non-free" mean that.
If it makes you happy, called it "closed-proprietary" or
"without-sources" or maybe "no-source-code".
Seriously, I really don't care about the name, though I still think
non-open should be understandable by everyone, especially as it's not
"non-open-source".
And even if people wouldn't understand by just thinking about, the
same applies as it does for "contrib" - spend 5 minutes on the web to
find it out.
>> But you probably must admit, that this isn't much more than a nice
>> long term goal and nothing that one can expect to ever happen.
>
> Universally? Not for a while. Piece-by-piece? That happens regularly.
>
> Netscape. Acroread. Bitkeeper. PGP. Pine. Numerous drivers. All
> made effectively obsolete by the creation of better FOSS alternatives.
Well and for n such things that become free when get ~n other things
that are proprietary.
Flash, proprietary cloud interfaces, new fashions of DRM (for example
EME in HTML5) and so on.
I think it would be a bit naive to assume that we ever reach the state
where everything moved to main.
Best wishes,
Philippe.
Reply to: