Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:35:12 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> said:
> Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
>> <wouter@grep.be> said:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is often
>> useful to people -- which is why the company is in business. And
>> yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the premise that
>> libre software is better.
> Do you mean to say that the one and only property about Debian we
> should be proud of is the fact that it consist of "100% free
> software"?
> Do you mean to say that the one and only goal we should pursue is to
> make, and keep, Debian "100% free software"?
You really must like to see the worlkd in black and white, to
so earnestly want to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. It is not
an olny goal -- but it certainly is an important one. Indeed, far
more important than meeting some release schedule.
> You know, that would make my life a lot easier. I could stop caring
> about bugs. "Shut up, you -- it's free software, you should be glad
> about that".
Yes, attacking strawmen often makes arguments easier -- but
unfortunately for you, I am not going to be drawn so.
>> If you think that this premise is flawed, then I wonder how you
>> passed the philosophy section of the NM process.
> I passed the philosophy section of the NM process, because I agreed
> that our users and free software are equally important. Yes,
> delivering free software is in the best interest of our users. That
> doesn't mean it's the *only* thing which is in the best interest of
> our users. And since our Social Contract declares them to be equally
> important, at times they can be in conflict.
> I think this is one such occasion.
The social contract also says that 100% free software thing,
with no if, and, or buts. Curious how you missed that.
> I agree; however, this is about more than just whether the RPC code
> is free or not. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't be part of this
> thread.
>> >> And you think our users are best served by non-free software?
>>
>> > Our users are best served by useful, working software.
>>
>> Even when it is not free?
> That's not what I said.
> Oh, wait, I get it. You're saying that the *only* thing we should
> care about is whether our software is free. All the rest is
> secondary, not even worth considering.
First, we are about freedom. Allowing people to wean
themselves off non-free software is an important step to freedom; and
thus the goal of delivering only free software in main.
I'll have no objection to keeping the non-free sun code in the
non free section of the archive, until the GR's work their way
through.
> I thought our users and Free Software were *equal*. No, I'm not
Yes, and our users deserve to get to using just free software,
and be weaned off the evil proprietary software. There are enough
vbenues of getting a fix of the community sapping non dfsg stuff; at
least Debian should be a source of the pure, librè software.
> saying we should ignore the fact that the RPC code is non-free, if
> that is the case. Yes, I'm saying we should take care not to
> over-react, and to make sure whatever action we take is in the best
> interest of our users.
The best interest of our users is a 100% free Debian
distribution.
> If that means to ship with non-free code in a core part of our
> distribution, then so be it. No, I'm not saying we should ship sarge
> at the set date at all cost, even if that means shipping with
> non-free parts inside; I'm just saying we should consider all
> alternatives, and do what's best for our users.
I do not consider shipping non free software to be in the best
long term interest of our users, and anyway, the social contract
shall have to be amended to remove the 100% free stuff before you can
ship the non-free software in main.
> Someone has to make the judgement call. It happened to be aj. If
> you're not happy with his decision, you're free to use the powers
> given to you by our constitution. Or to fix the problem, as I
> suggested in my original post. Although, in hindsight, I could've
> been a bit more polite.
Hmm. I think I may do that. You think that we should ask the
secretary to rule on Section 2 of the Debisn Technical policy Manual?
manoj
--
The linuX Files -- The Source is Out There. Sent in by Craig S. Bell,
goat@aracnet.com
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: