Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:48:41AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Sylvain LE GALL <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Well, it is quite heavy as discussion. I think non-free is needed for a
> > lot of us ( as user and as DD ). In fact, since i have seen this
> > discussion about GFDL and documentation in general, i can't stop
> > thinking that is really a loose of time.
>
> What is the problem if such non-free packages are moved to another
> machine which is unrelated to debian.org?
>
Well, it could be a good alternative. But it won't be distributed with
CD... And some people don't have access to online apt repository.
> > I can't understand the position about removing non-free. I was thinking
> > that it was in social contract. Removing non-free is non sense. I have
> > seen in debian-devel a thread about "top 5 things you want in debian".
> > All is about : mplayer, java... All non-free. To my mind, if we remove
>
> mplayer is not in Debian.
>
... Indeed... Here is the problem ( but it is only my point of view ).
> > non-free, we will loose a great number of user... Because if non-free
>
> We will not loose so much users because there are not that many
> non-free programs that don't have a free alternative.
>
> > exists that's because free alternatives are not mature enough. To my
>
> Example?
>
Acroread ! Try to use other alternatives but i realy see the difference.
( but alternatives are still usable ).
> > mind, it is mainly a question of "integrism". A certain part of the DD
> > want to have a "100% free" distribution. I don't think it is a good way
> > of thinking... Our first aims is to provide -- all -- user a good
> > distribution. If all free alternatives were as functional as non-free, i
> > would not argue so.
>
> Debian is already 100% free software. non-free is not part of Debian.
> Again, why would debian need to give bandwidth and disk space for
> non-free packages?
>
Because to my mind Debian is not only for GNU People. There is user who
are very to have the non-free alternatives. When a user will come to you
asking : why acroread has been removed ? I use it everyday...
> > Last but not least : regarding the progress of GFDL issue, if we remove
> > non-free we will have a "100% documentation less" distribution. It is
> > ridiculous. We will have software but no documentation... We will loose
> > ocaml-doc and a lot more.
>
> The GDFL issue is a different problem. I'm sure GNU would accept to
> host APT repos for such packages.
>
Yep, one apt for this, one apt for that... Maybe we simply could have
one apt per package .... It will prevent any licence issue !
> > My position : keep non-free, stop the GFDL mess ( invariant in
> > documentation seems normal to me... ).
> >
> > Concerning the .el... As usual, we have the opinion of a "100% free"
> > supporter ( ie RMS ). I don't think it is a good position neither. To my
> > mind freedom, is also the choice of upstream to choose their licence...
> > ( you know : "free speech / free beer" )
>
> I'm no even sure about arguments given.
>
> > I hope debian will not become : Debian "GNU only/Mach" ( after all,
> > Linux is not free -- from SCO point of view ;-) ).
>
> I hope we'll keep using Linux because there is no better alternative
> else than FreeBSD 5.x.
>
Well, you should not understand my position. I know that i don't give
strong enough arguments... I am not an expert, but i talk from a user
point of view, to whom somebody said : well today you have this and that
( ie the choice ) and tomorrow you will only have this ( ie not the
choice ). I will alway been in favor of having the choice.
Regard
Sylvain LE GALL
Reply to: