Re: removing links from main to contrib|non-free (was: weekly policy summary)
> Date: 18 Jun 1999 11:08:08 +0200
> To: Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
> cc: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
> From: "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <salve@debian.org>
>
> ***** GB => Goswin Brederlow
>
> GB> If the suggests to non-free or contrib are depreciated by policy
> GB> or even forbidden, debian will loose much.
Will it? What will it lose?
> GB> Non-free is a part of Debian in some way,
No way. As pointed out, non-free software is NOT part of debian.
Maybe GB is saying that since there exists a non-free distribution in
debian, that necessarily means it's part thereof, but no. Think of it as
a convenience to those who want to use that stuff.
Maybe without realizing it, GB is arguing for the -removal- of that section.
He could be saying: "since debian is free software, the existance of a
non-free section implies it is part of debian, so let's resolve that conflict,
perhaps by removing the offending section." It would be up to debian-legal, I
think, to express a legal opinion on whether debian's distribution of non-free
things makes them "a part of debian".
RMS would probably be all for that, but I'm not... I like having the choice.
As I said before, the user should have the choice too. Should he or she choose
to go with all free software, we should let that happen. Period!
Maybe we can do this: IF the user adds a non-free source to apt's sources.list,
then and ONLY then should any free software installed or available reveal a
suggestion or recommendation of non-free or contrib software. Should it become
revealed, it would then take effect. Were this done, I think it would satisfy
both camps here. Packages could keep their package relation declarations, and
the package managers (dpkg, dselect, apt and whatever else) can be modified
to show or hide undesired relations.
In my opinion, if a consensus of developers go for this idea, then policy
should reflect these requirements on -all- debian package tools.
However, the enforced relation ("Depends:") cannot exist from main into contrib
or non-free. To do so would revoke the user's choice, and I don't see anything
that could be done to change this; it seems logically intrinsic.
(with the suggestion that non-free software is somehow part of debian,)
> Our Social Contract disagrees:
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------<
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
>
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that
> don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
> "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software.
> The software in these directories is not part of the Debian system,
> although it has been configured for use with Debian.
[snip]
I am in total agreement with you, David, and with the social contract.
If one is a debian developer, that one also agrees to this. I had to say
"I agree to the social contract" in my application form.
-Jim
Reply to: