Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:14:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't know if you are aware of that, but a discussion has been raging
> on debian-vote about the removal of non-free from our archive, our BTS,
> and so on.
>
> I have been involved in it (even proposed a GR ammendment, altough it
> was a bit 'bancal'), and also since i am involved with non-free as DD (i
> maintain the unicorn ADSL modem drivers) and as user (i need lha, but
> also also because of ocaml-doc and ocaml-books).
>
> Since the debian-ocaml team is involved with 3 packages in non-free, i
> would like to hear about your/our position on this issue (well, and
> eventually second the anti-non-free removal if you feel like this). I
> have also sent a small mention about this to the caml team this morning,
> in marge of an email concerning the bug report :
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227159
>
> About a QPLed caml-types.el from Damien Doligez. The debian-legal
> response to my request on this bug report has been less than thrilling
> (basically arguig that it would be polite to RMS not to distribute
> non-GPL compatible .el files :/).
>
> So, what is our position on this, both individually and as a group ?
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
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.
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
non-free, we will loose a great number of user... Because if non-free
exists that's because free alternatives are not mature enough. To my
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.
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.
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 hope debian will not become : Debian "GNU only/Mach" ( after all,
Linux is not free -- from SCO point of view ;-) ).
Kind regard
Sylvain LE GALL
Reply to: