On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 02:48:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Evasion? Evasion? Thems fighting words, almost ;-) > > Branden> You are using the existence of documentation for a protocol > Branden> that has no de facto free implementation as justification > Branden> for a program's inclusion in main, IF policy were such that > Branden> it would be excluded because of the non-existence of that de > Branden> facto free implementation. > > Nope. I think that the correct distinction is that in one > case, some one has come up with a fully free, standalone program that > does not require any non-free element to exists on you machine, yet > empowers you to function in a ghastly proprietary world out there. Obviously the time has not yet come for my idea. As long as people are unwilling to argue about anything other than "But client/server protocol transactions AREN'T THE SAME as linking against a library!" There's really nothing TO argue about, or discuss. I grant the above point, and never contested it. Of course they are different things. The point of my mail was to suggest that perhaps there might be something to be gained by adopting an even stricter policy towards main than we had in the past. People apparently don't want to even consider that, and don't want to consider it so strongly that they'll just say "that's not the current policy!" in 100 different ways. Of course it's not the current policy, in practice, or as written (explicitly, anyway). > Far from promoting a non-free library, it enables you to > participate in a a distributed transaction; and yes, the remote end > may be using proprietary software, and yes, there is yet no free > equivalent. That shall come. Not necessarily. > You think that free software emerged full blown from the minds > of the creators in the beginning? You think we did not have to > bootstrap on propreitary systems? This is one of the weapons Knghtbrd tried to weild on IRC with me last night. This point is not news and it's not support for your stance. Free software has always compromised with proprietary software to some degree. We still do; we still deal with proprietary BIOSes and undocumented hardware. Like a pack of dittoheads, people kept griping, "well, what about lilo? We'd have to take it out of main, too!" The slippery slope has been used by the opposition, not by the people who raised this topic. Again, I was taking a specific class of software and proposing a stricter policy that would effectively inform people that they were dealing with a proprietary protocol or server that had not been effectively freed yet. > We have a free client side. Rejoice in it. If enough people > use and like the software, we may have a free replacement of the > server side one day. Just like we have a free replacement for an Fraunhoefer's MP3 encoder, right? I'm telling you, this is as likely as any the next line of attack on free software. Carrot and stick. Free (even DFSG-free) clients and decoders, proprietary and patented encoders and servers. We can be proactive or reactive about this threat. If it turns out to be a red herring, we can always go back to the more liberal policy. I think this threat is being soundly ignored for the moment. The wretched refuse on Slashdot's teeming shore have the message about operating systems and stand-alone apps like office software, perhaps, but they want their MP3's, and figure that since the player is free, that's good enough. They want their Star Wars trailers and a free viewer with which to watch them. They don't think about the other end of the process. I thought this would be a good way to raise awareness, but I guess people don't want their awareness raised this way. People excoriated me for trying to throw free software into the "ghetto" of contrib, ignoring the fact that everything in there is free software already. Where's bladeenc? It doesn't even seem to be in non-us anymore. If groups like WIPO get their way (and very recent European jurisprudence regarding software patents is in their favor) we're going to have to relocate non-us to Madagascar, or some remote place that doesn't respect their treaties, and is not under the thumb of U.S. corporate interests. Fine, the stuff stays in main today. Tomorrow, patents will take it out by force. Anyway, my suggestion (which wasn't even a policy proposal, you'll note) is withdrawn. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of human Debian GNU/Linux | stupidity. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | -- Robert Heinlein cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpXPPV1urBe2.pgp
Description: PGP signature