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.'
> > 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.