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

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free



Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> > 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.

So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our
users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in our
users' best interest.

Either way results in an action in conflict with the social contract.
The question is: what's the least of the two evils?

That's a judgement call we have to make, and it may well be different if
you make it, as compared to if I make it. Especially since it's not
clearly defined anywhere what's actually 'in the best interest of our
users'.

> > 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,

I'm not suggesting that. But making sure our software is useful is part
of our principles, too.

[...]
> 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.

Again, I couldn't care less about market share. However, I do care about
what's in the best interest of our users. If our users go away to a
different distribution because that one is not useless to them, surely
some choice we made was not in their best interest.

[...]
> > 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.

I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to
happen *now*.

> >> 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?

Our users are best served by useful, working software.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend


Reply to: