Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 06:51:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Thomas, stop Cc'ing me.
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > What I suspect you're becoming confused about though, is thinking that
> > removing a package from the Debian distribution, and adding it to the
> > non-free component, harms users even slightly. It doesn't. It is still
> > trivial to get, still supported, and still gives users the exact same
> > rights they had previously.
> Ah, but that's the point. If you're on the side that thinks that
> non-free is, well, "just as easy to get" as Debian,
Well, not to be as pedantic as Branden often is, but I never said it was
"just as easy to get", I said it was "still trivial to get". And it is:
you add one line, or even one word, to /etc/apt/sources.list and then
do what you would've if it was in main.
> then you've
> already forgotten some of the important practical reasons for the
> separation of non-free from main. (For example, CDs don't include
> non-free.)
A lot of software in non-free can be included on CDs. Pine can, for
example.
> It is *not* just as easy for users to get, and moreover,
> since I think the emacs manual *is* free, users would be misled by its
> placement in non-free.
DJB thinks qmail's free too, and UW thinks pine is free. Or, at least, they
think it's "free enough". Debian doesn't.
If you think the emacs manual is free, and you want Debian to think
so too, you should actually rebutt some of the "peripheral issues"
people bring up which are convincing them that the emacs manual *isn't*
free enough.
> Which means: there is no "default" choice here which is harmless;
There's no easy choice, no. But you're still choosing to be blind to the
fact that putting a package in non-free versus main is a choice to be
*solely* made on its license. Moving it to non-free does not harm users.
"But if you change the package name from foobar to foo-bar, I'm going
to kill myself, so as a result of the change it'll harm this user,
so changing package names clearly does harm users in general, so there!"
> One thing that is important to recognize is that the position
> "absolutely no invariant text in main of any kind" is not tenable at
> all,
Why do you think that?
No one's questioning that licenses must be allowed to remain invariant,
and likewise trivial addenda like copyright notices and stuff like that.
However *everything* else, from the social contract, to the Debian manifesto,
to the GNU Manifesto, to the emacs manual Distribution section, to the GDB
Sample Session is up for debate. I'm not sure why you think arguing to remove
all of those and anything similar (which is the most extreme stand I've
seen anyone take) is untenable.
> so people should *please* stop appealing to it, and instead focus
> on which kinds of invariant text they do want, and which they don't
> want, and why they draw the line where they do.
It's a bit rich you saying this when you've gone ahead and ignored
everything in my mails that addressed these issues.
Stop Cc'ing me.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Reply to: