Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:38:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> said:
>> In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as
>> there is no free implementation.
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether or not this
> is free; and I'm certainly not saying it's OK to ship non-free code
> in main.
> What I *am* saying is that we *are* already shipping this way, and
> that not removing the code would not intensify the problem. However,
> postponing the release any further would certainly intensify the
> other problem, namely, that we still don't have another release this
> long after the release of woody.
We made a mistake, through ignorance of the problem, in the
past. We are not now ignorant of the issue. We should not make the
same mistake again, since this time it shall be willful.
> Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not
> try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and
> *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution.
The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you
think that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those
bits, and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant,
since the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument.
> In this particular case, with code being so important to a major
> part of our users, given that our users and the DFSG are, per the
> Social Contract, equally important, and given that the piece of code
> in dispute *is* already in stable, I'm saying we should not hold up
> the release to write a replacement. However, if *you* are willing to
> write a replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for
> that, I will support you, but then you should make sure the code is
> at least as good as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not
> doing so would be a disservice to our users, and not worth the
> effort.
I see. Some non free software is too inconvenient to give up,
so we should whore out our principles, until someone can write a
free replacement that is completely equivalent. In other words,
convenience and utility of non-free software trumps principles
everytime.
sarcastic>
> It would probably hold up the release for yet another year or two,
> but who cares about such things anyway?
>> /sarcastic>
I think I do care more for libre software than I do about
releases and market share. Compromising our principles for quick
releases buys us what, exactly? Do we have a marketting department
now?
>> Do you really think this is the stance of the project?
> Not the way you put it, no.
I am happy to hear you say that.
>> > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the
>> > fuck up.
>>
>> Right, how dare you imply that we care about shipping only free
>> code in main.
> Again, that's not what I'm saying. For one thing, I'm not convinced
> the code is non-free, but perhaps that's just me; I won't make any
> argument about that. However, in this particular case, at this
> moment in time, pulling the code out would, again, be a disservice
> to our users.
But you did not say that. Had you stated reasons why the code
should be free, I would not have had any concerns: but you chose
instead to brow beat people trying to bring up concerns about
copyright violations, and tried to buttress your case with flimsy
arguments of how convenience ought to come before principles.
>> We are all about expedience, not about freedom.
> Actually, we are about both (if I understand 'expedience' correct
> from the context; don't have a dictionary nearby)
Haste does not trump freedom, in my book.
> [...]
>> > We can't ship without RPC in glibc (that would be a severe
>> > disservice to our users, as it would break NFS, parts of Gnome
>> > (FAM, for instance, on which parts of Gnome depend, uses RPC),
>> > and most likely some other major parts of our distribution as
>> > well; and per the Social Contract, our users and the DFSG are
>> > equally important), and the code is (at least) not
>> > GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after
>> > section 2c of the GPL if you disagree).
>>
>> Indeed. Some non free code is too important not to ship.
> That's not what I'm saying. Some code of which the freeness is being
> challenged, is already being shipped.
Then make that case. Do not throw up red herrings about how
things are too important not to ship, no matter what.
>> Not shipping such non free code would be a major disservice to our
>> users,
> Actually, pulling that code out would be a major disservice to our
> users. It's already in there. Our users expect it to be there, or at
> least, they expect a functionally equivalent part of code there.
Our users also expect us to act with a degree of correctness,
and who depend on our ethics. If the code is truly free, then sure,
there is no problem. State your case.
If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve.
>> and would lose Debian important market share, and we can't possibly
>> let scruples stand in the way of market share, can we?
> I couldn't care less about market share. I do care about the social
> contract, though, which says 'Our priorities are our users and free
> software'.
And you think our users are best served by non-free software?
manoj
--
RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY _
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: