[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Clarifications

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:

> On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> > There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now.  Let me
> > clarify a few points:
> > 
> > 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has.  My
> > proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution.
> > This bears repeating.  This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution.
> 	I disagree.  It will have effect on the CD distribution.  It will
> have an effect on the http/ftp/rsync distribution.

	Gah, okay, this is a stupid reply but I felt the mistake warrented
it.  I intended to say 'It will NOT have effect on the CD distribution.'
My apologies.

> > 6. This proposal is made on my own accord and does not represent the
> > interests of any other party.  I advance it because I believe it is
> > the best for Debian.
> 	A large problem with this proposal is the form and reason for it.
> 	The reason seems to be completely political.  There are no
> technical merits to it.  Letting outselves be driven by politics may
> not be beneficial.  As a change there needs to be some justification and
> a solid reason to make such a change.  The creators apparently felt
> there was reason for non-free to exist.  Non-free is clearly beneficial
> to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it.

	'packaged the items which clearly were packaged.' may be better
phrasing and alliviate some possible confusion.

> 	Concern should be raised as to the reasons for this political
> statement.  What is the external reason for this change?  Have users
> been confused as to the meaning of 'non-free'?  Or have they been
> confused with regard to what Debian is and stands for?  Or is it bad
> press that Debian is being hypocritical with it's ideals?
> 	It is unlikely that any of these are the case.  If 'bad press'
> is indeed the reason then perhaps Debian is not about developers and
> users and is instead about politicians and mud slinging.

	Okay, the 'mud slinging' comment may have been best kept in my
head.  Please do not let it detract from point I am driving to drive at

> 	Developers know what Debian is, and what it stands for.  Users
> understand Debian's goals and policies.  Press in general should be
> ignored unless there is some technical merit to it.  Let us not cause
> greater confusion and work in order to make a statement about what we
> are, for we are already known and understood.
> > 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other
> > Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software
> > -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software.
> 	This appears against the ideals that are apparently desired and
> makes for confusion.  Such a split would be worse than a complete break.

	My apologies for replying to myself but I felt the obvious 
mistake at the top needed correcting and decided I might as well fine
tune some of the other bits so as to make this not completely a one-liner.
Again, my apologies.


Reply to: