On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 08:58:19PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> JC> ICQ is a _DOCUMENTED_ protocol. The clients couldn't have been
> JC> written freely without that documentation could they? There are
> JC> also at least two projects working to create free ICQ servers,
> JC> one of them actually has an alpha quality server.
>
> Then package that server in `main', and I'll be happy. If it isn't in
> `main', then I think it's worthwhile to make a clear distinction that
> free ICQ clients aren't useful in an isolated network running only
> Debian.
Argh, are you kidding? I _HATE_ ICQ!
> Without that distinction, I get the gut-wrenching feeling of finding
> cool-looking software on my main-only system, getting excited about
> it, then discovering after 2 *wasted* hours of investigation, that
> it's totally useless without a proprietary server.
If you're spending 2 hours figuring out if the server on the other end of
the connection has source or not, I feel for you. But I can recommend a
good mental health specialist (the one I escaped from in fact!)
> Kinda like how I got excited about some packages I saw in `contrib',
> but then found out they depended on `non-free'. I got burned once,
> and learned my lesson: now I just totally ignore `contrib', and I'll
> never, ever, maintain a `contrib' package on behalf of Debian.
The keyring is kinda important to us and happens to be in (you guessed
it!) CONTRIB! Lesson: Don't judge a package by where you find it.
> JC> Based on that you did not know this (and I didn't either prior to
> JC> this coming up) I believe this adiquate proof that you don't know
> JC> about every single free software project in existance.
>
> ... but I know plenty about every single free software project bundled
> in Debian's main, and that's all we're talking about.
>
> $ less /var/lib/dpkg/available
>
> I'm a naive user. If it's not in Debian, FAIP, it doesn't exist.
Thank you for arguing my point, that moving packages out of main (and out
of Debian as a result) does limit their availability.
> But their judgement matters a helluva lot when they *administer* their
> system. If they don't know something exists, and can't easily find it
> can we honestly fault them for complaining that the `gtkicq' package
> is totally useless because they're on a network that doesn't run any
> non-free software?
Debian doesn't guarantee the packages you install will be of any use to
you, only that you don't need non-free software on your system to compile
and run it. If you can't find an ICQ server, That's Not My Problem.
Of course, looking at the code for the ICQ server in question, it's too
buggy to be useful as a practical server. If that's not good enough, now
not only do you want a free server but you want a free server of a
certain quality. I don't think I need to argue that arbitrary decisions
of whether or not some software is good enough to affect its use in
Debian are absolutely horrible and I would hope no developer in his right
mind would allow that.
> Isn't `contrib' *designed* to help these kinds of people out? If
> members of the Project vote that it isn't, then I've proposed making a
> new category.
No. Contrib gets two types of packages: Those packages that require
linking with non-free software and those packages that cannot be built
from the source package without installing non-free software. In theory
both qualify as the latter but we've had a number of people suggest
creating dummy packages to get around that which I consider to be an
attempt to make an end-run of the spirit of the social contract.
> JC> You're free to propose this, but like James' proposal it's going
> JC> to require a vote.
>
> Sure, whatever. Branden and James didn't propose anything, either.
> That's why neither of us understands the argumentative reaction we're
> getting.
>
> The point of discussing this on debian-policy is so that we can
> *constructively* refine the ideas. Flames don't help anybody.
Why? Well, james acted before he started the discussion. That annoyed
me a bit, but I'll get over it I'm sure. However I strongly disagree
with the change being discussed. Very strongly in fact. I believe it
can only be an arbitrary determination based on what a small number of
individuals know (or think they know which is far more dangerous) without
any real balance to be sure that their arbitrary decision fits anyones
morals but their own.
I object to what I feel is the creation of a double standard. The
software is free enough for the DFSG. It doesn't have any dependancy on
any non-free software either in Debian or that you must yourself install.
It's perfectly free. And up until a week ago, it would have been
accepted into main no problem.
I object to what I feel would be a policy which narrows the definition of
"truly free" software beyond that which the social contract and DFSG
currently provide. And so far what I have seen indicates that the intent
is to do this without changing anything other than policy. I see an
attempt to change the interpretation of the social contract, that's not a
policy change.
And I object to changing our definition of free software to be what it is
now with the added restriction that the software must be determined to be
useful with other free software (or at least without any non-free
software...)
See my post regarding TrueType for one single example of something which
I have seen nobody able to argue that they can create a TTF with only
free software (other than the argument that they could use beav and make
the bytes be what they want them to be by hand...) So you're going to
say taht ttf packages like xfstt and freetype go into contrib? What sort
of ripple effect does this have?
And where do we draw the line? WinNT has its own filesystem. The Linux
kernel itself provides a module for accessing this thing, yet it is
impossible to even create it without WinNT or possibly some other
non-free software (since I think Partition Magic can now create NTFS
partitions..) You want to argue that LINUX moves into contrib? No of
course not. How about lilo which requires your non-free PC BIOS?
Where do you draw the line, and since you're the one who wants to change
things from how they are now, how can you justify what you're doing and
respond to the argument that you are creating a double-standard. I would
say that current policy is pretty cut and dry. We have a definition of
free software, based on the license of the software. We have agreed that
main includes things which fit that definition. We have agreed that
contrib is for software which is free but requires installation of
non-free software to use it or compile it. That's pretty simple IMO.
What you're after is arbitrary and boils down to letting currently tree
people decide for all of 400+ of us whether or not our packages are free
enough for their tastes. And james specifically said that he refuses to
install a package into main which he doesn't personally think is free
enough, no matter what anyone else says or decides. He has said taht if
someone else wants to, they are welcome to.
However, this is not the first time someone has decided that they simply
are not going to do something no matter what anyone says. At least one
person has applied to become a developer and their application sat
collecting virtual dust because the two people responsible for these both
decided they weren't going to process the application. Essentially, they
rejected the application but dodged responsibility for rejecting it by
simply not processing it and leaving it "pending"....
I've already seen the results of a final decision belonging to a small
group of people with no real chance for appeal with the new maintainer
team. While I realize the archive maintainers have the same sort of
final authority without any real appeals process, james is essentially
asking for us to agree that he should be allowed to make an arbitrary
decision of a package's freeness. His first demonstration: a package
which came up on -legal and whose license was actually changed so it
could be uploaded to main!
Arguably in the case of the archive there is SOME appeals process, but it
certainly can't be easy. It's quite probably likely to boil down to the
same appeals process there is for the new maintainer team: Try and
somehow convince the people who have the final authority on the subject
to change their minds. Well, without getting any more personal than this
already is, it's not bloody likely.
> JC> I suppose once the logo issue is settled we could put it to a
> JC> vote if the ideas' sponsors really want to, but I intend to vote
> JC> AGAINST any such arbitrary decisions of softwares' usefulness.
>
> I'm glad to know that you have an open mind, and enjoy participating
> in the stepwise refinement of crude ideas that were put forward by
> people who have a different perspective than you do.
I signed up for the ideals and definitions Debian has now. I'm certainly
free to voice my objection to those things changing am I not?
> The fact that the likes of James Troup and Branden Robinson *care*
> about this idea should be a BIG HINT that maybe, just *maybe* it might
> have some hidden shred of merit. Obviously you don't value their
> opinions highly enough to try to understand where they're coming from
> before you flame.
I considered the idea. I seriously did. But I quickly found that I
couldn't agree with it. I haven't even heard RMS suggesting that
something like tik is evil. aj is going to ask him about that, however
all I can say is that I am going to be VERY amused if RMS has no problem
with packages such as tik! I'll save that flame until I hear an answer
from him though. He might agree with james---though this wouldn't be the
first time RMS and I disagreed on something and it won't be the last I'm
almost sure.
> Maybe you shouldn't decide on how you're going to vote, until you
> actually read the polished proposal (which hasn't even been written
> yet) lest you be forced to eat some humble pie.
As long as the proposal is based on what I consider a flawed premise, I
couldn't support it.
> Don't get me wrong... I've had lots and lots of that ego-crushing pie
> in the past, but at least I'm trying to understand where others come
> from, including you. The anger that I'm expressing at you is equally
> directed at myself, for the times I act like the asshole you're acting
> like right now.
It could be worse: I could be an asshole about it and also be wrong. =>
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<muggles> i'm trying to convince some netcom admins i know to convert
to Debian from RH, netgod, but they are DAMN stubborn
<muggles> why RH users so damned hard headed?
<Espy> it's the hat
Attachment:
pgpwcDdzTNdDK.pgp
Description: PGP signature