On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:27:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Why are we putting his code out of Debian? Cause he did not
> >> also go and write up the server. "Sure, yuo wrote GPL'd code, which
> >> does not link with any non-free libs, but that ain't good enough. Now
> >> go back and write the server,, or your code is not free software".
> Anthony> Since when is code in contrib not free software?
> If it were really fee, it would be in Debian. Debian is seen
> as a bastion of free software, hence, if it ain't in Debian ...
So, eg, software that depends on otherwise free non-us software isn't
really free?
So the rules for being `really free' aren't just the DFSG but a bunch of
extra little things like, `has to be usable in the US', and `can't just
be wrappers for non-free packages'?
Bah. Software in contrib passes the DFSG, therefore it's free. /Really/
free.
The only thing that it isn't, is useful in a completely free environment.
You can't even use it without putting non-free software right there on
your harddrive.
> Anthony> We're putting his code out of Debian because it's useless in
> Anthony> a completely free environment.
> In whose opinion? I find it useful, and I don't need the darn
> non-free server. I may wa t to study how it is put together.
If that's all the package is good for in a free environment, then it ought
to be packaged completely in /usr/doc, like the diploma package.
> Or something.
Or something. Great.
> We can't determine what uses people put the stuff we write
> to.
Says who? We certainly seem to have been able to determine that netscape3
and netscape4 installer packages are only going to be used to install the
non-free netscape browser, and not to `study how it is put together.'
> Anthony> Not because it's bad, or because it's useless in other
> Anthony> environments, and certainly not because it's `not free' (it
> Anthony> *is* free afterall), but just because it depends on non-free
> Anthony> software.
> I think we dffer on the definition of Depend. I think if it
> does not require non-free software to sompile, or links to non free
> libraries, it does not depend on non free software. I mean, it merely
> talks to a socket on my box, which sends a request out on the
> network.
Try pointing `it' at a remote server (since there aren't any free servers
for you to install locally), then unplugging your network connection, turning
off your modem or whatever.
See if it still works.
Now tell me that `this client depends on a non-free server' isn't a
reasonable statement to make.
> >> I wish people would at least consult the dictionary before
> >> making seemingly authoritative statements like this.
> >> >From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
> >> Usage: To compel denotes to urge on by force which cannot be
> >> resisted.
> Anthony> How is saying "We're going to put this in contrib, not in
> Anthony> Debian proper" a force that cannot be resisted?
> Actually, we all know that blackmail can be resisted.
You're awfully fond of the loaded terms there, Manoj. If one didn't know
better, one might assume you were going for a knee-jerk emotive reponse
because you didn't have a rational argument for your case.
blackmail
n : extortion of money by threats to divulge discrediting
information
v 1: exert pressure on someone through threats [syn: {blackjack},
{pressure}]
2: obtain through threats
Well, let's see. We're not divulging discrediting information, so it can't
be that. So we must be `exerting pressure on someone throught threats'.
And as it turns out, `threat' is an accurate term either: we wouldn't
be threatening to put it in contrib, we'd *be* putting it in contrib.
> Yu can
> say no to the blackmailer, and take the consequencxes. Usually, that
> choice is quite unpleasant (just like if I wrote GPL'd software, only
> to have it labeled not free enough to be in Debian).
Mmmm? So we're already blackmailing Joey Hess to produce a free RealVideo
player so his installer can go into main? And what about all those
poor dears who're just trying to write a simple program, whom we're now
coercing to write a free replacement xforms library?
Man. Are we nasty or _what_!?
Yeah. You can say `no' to the blackmailer and get told `If you want to get
a .deb of your program you have to spend a whole extra $2 and get the contrib
CDs as well as the main CDs.'. Or maybe they might have to add an extra line
to the sources.list. How *horrible*.
> The force need not be physical. It can be moral. Some one who
> GPL's their code obviously believes in the free software commnuity
> (and they are utting their labour where their mouth is). To them,
> having the stigma of having their software being called non free can
> be painful.
Then for God's sake would you *stop* calling all their code non-free
just because it's not in main? You're clearly already alienating all
our contrib authors.
`contrib' and `non-free' are two *completely* separate areas. Just
because software's not suitable for the main Debian distribution does
not mean in any way that it's not free.
> Anthony> Yes, we're urging them to make the server free too. But
> Anthony> we're not forcing them, and they can *certainly* resist our
> Anthony> demands.
> The person who wrote the client may have nothing to do with
> the server. If the two are distinct sets of people, you are punishing
> the author of the client for the author of the server not making the
> server free. Does not seem fair.
`The person who wrote the program may have nothing to do with the library.
If the two are distinct sets of people, you are punishing the author of
the program for the author of the library not making the library free. Does
not seem fair.'
a) Punishing? Surely you jest. We're not talking about a beating or anything
here. We're talking about appropriately classifying software as depending
on non-free software for its functionality.
b) _Big deal_. We already do this for local dependencies.
> Anthony> When we put pine and qmail in non-free, did that coerce the
> Anthony> authors of those products to change their license?
> We tried. They called our bluff. And they are really in non
> free since we do not have a licence to distribute the code, which is
> a titally different thing.
They called our bluff? Dammit. We must really be kicking ourselves that
we didn't just put it in main in the first place.
> Anthony> Where *is* this `irresistable force'?
> No one said that the coercion was effectual.
An ineffectual irresistable force.
Would you care to look up that dictionary again, Manoj?
Here, I'll help. The first definition which I didn't bother responding to
in my last post:
coerce
v : to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical,
moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a
job in the city" [syn: {pressure}, {force}]
Note the `to cause to do'. We caused pine and qmail to be freed, even
though they're not actually free, right?
> That makes it
> worse, actually. We are delibrately making our system less capable
> and for what?
We're not making the `system' less capable.
For people who want `capable' they have to download more from contrib than
they do now. I'm sure their hearts will just break.
For people who want `free and unencumbered', they won't get mislead by
seeing, for example, a free ICQ client and thinking "great! I can see
what I've been missing while my friends have all been using that stupid
thing", and spending the next few hours trying to work out how to get
a UIN. Perhaps we're just stupid, but a friend and I both couldn't find
a way of doing this without trotting off to a Windows machine.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``Smart, sexy, single. Pick any two (you can't have all three).''
-- RFC 1925, paraphrased: a guide to networking in the '90s
Attachment:
pgp2AePf2RxIF.pgp
Description: PGP signature