Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free
Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>
> I responded to this on debian-project because it is the appropriate
> place to discuss meta-project issues like this, and the debian-devel
> thread has degenerated, as debian-devel threads tend to do.
True, on both counts.
> John, I would like to see the removal of non-free software from
> Debian, but I think that the resolution you have drafted is
> problematic for several reasons. I would not like to have a
> resolution going up for vote that I and others who support the removal
> of non-free cannot vote in support of. I would not want a precedent
> set which would make removing non-free more difficult.
Agreed. I am one of the seconders of John's proposal. While am unhappy
with the state of affairs wrt non-free, I'm not totally convinced that
the proposal (as written) is the best possible solution. If my second
seems inconsistent with that position, it's because John's proposal is
the first that's been offered since I became able to participate in the
process. I felt (and still do) that the issue needed to be addressed.
Debate is good. New ideas and solutions can arise from it. (Those that
say "It's been brought up and flamed before" don't seriously propose that
every possible solution has been explored, and nothing new can be thought
of? Do they?)
> Luckily the project secretary has said he hasn't seen the appropriate
> number of signed seconds and does not consider this an officially
> accepted resolution. This gives us time to revise this some more.
>
> > 1. That text of Section 5 be modified to read: "We acknowledge that
> > some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to
> > the Debian Free Software Guidelines. While we will not distribute
> > such software itself, we have created areas in our archive for
> > packages that help install or otherwise requre this software. The
> > software in these areas is not part of the Debian system, although
> > it has been configured for use with Debian." The title of
> > Section 5 shall be modified to read: "We will support users of our
> > system who develop or run non-free software."
>
> This implies that contrib is staying in an unadulterated form, and that
> Debian would still have software that recommends non-free software.
> This would mean a considerable number of broken packages on the Debian
> archives, where we presently have none (in a theoretical sense). I
> think it's important for the Debian archive to be self-contained, and
> this would not allow that. I also think that what Debian needs is to
> be free of any mention of non-free software, and retaining packages in
> contrib which rely upon specific non-free packages, as opposed to
> virtual packages like "jdk" or "jvm" or similar things does not
> fulfill that requirement.
>
> You might recall RMS participating in a long discussion about this
> issue a year or so ago, and by the end we had a pretty good scheme for
> accomplishing this. the debian-devel archives would be a good place
> to check. The gist of it was to remove contrib and main from the
^^^^
I assume this is a typo. s/main/non-free?
> Debian archive, and to remove any mention of non-free software from
> the Debian web pages and any other official documentation. The
> handling of contrib and non-free would be done by non-Debian/SPI
> resources, tho Debian developers are obviously able to do whatever
> they want.
>
> I think that approach, the removal of contrib and non-free, coupled
> with some technological advancements (which could mean more code, or
> perhaps just some guidelines and informal standards for repository
> maintenance and packages) would allow the Debian project itself to be
> just Free Software, but provide a mechanism for those who need/want
> non-free software to integrate with the Debian system smoothly. In
> the process, we would also be making some ground towards
> decentralizing the Debian package pool (in the abstract sense, not in
> the specific sense of the "package pool" proposal).
>
> As the current resolution stands, I don't think it goes far enough in
> removing support/recommendation of non-free software, cuts up the
> Debian archive at an awkward point, and does not address the very real
> concerns about Debian's ability to integrate other package pools in a
> reasonable manner, either from separate Free Software parties, or from
> non-free parties.
Valid criticisms, all.
> > B. That the non-free areas be removed from current Debian archives,
> > and that all packages so placed there in accordance with the
> > definition in Policy section 2.1.4 be removed from the Distribution
> > and archives. The introduction into the Debian Distribution or the
> > Debian archives of any package meeting the non-free definition in
> > Policy section 2.1.4, or failing the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
> > shall be forbidden.
>
> I think it's important that the Debian archive, or any other resources
> officially associated with Debian, or funded with Debian/SPI dollars
> not be used to support or recommend non-free software. It's
> particularly important at this juncture when most GNU/Linux systems
> have accelerated their integration with non-free software, and/or
> directly contribute and promote non-free software from third-parties
> at the expense of Free Software alternatives.
>
> However, this should not be taken as a suggestion that Debian isolate
> itself from it's user community, or other parties. In fact, I think
> that the removal of non-free/contrib from Debian is contingent upon a
> solution to the issues of users integrating third party repositories
> with Debian proper. I would suggest that this problem be tackled
> prior to the formal introduction of a resolution to remove
> non-free/contrib from the Debian archives and other Debian resources.
> Not only would it allow us to get rid of non-free/contrib, but it
> would take Debian to the next level in terms of making the most of the
> resources the Internet provides for decentralized collaboration.
>
> I see the issue of pool integration as having the following sticking
> points:
>
> 1. Inter-archive namespace mgmt and dependency tracking.
>
> 2. Identification of package source and other metadata about it's
> archive of origin to facilitate the reporting of bugs to the
> appropriate source, and managing the set of archives one pulls
> packages from.
>
> 3. Package signature checks and trust networks for
> developers/packagers.
>
> 4. Directory services for package archives to facilitate the search
> for third party archives.
>
> 5. Quality control guided by trust relations and reputation, as well
> as lintian checks.
>
> I don't think all of these problems need be "nailed" prior to the
> removal of non-free/contrib, but I do think that it would be dishonest
> for the project to remove non-free/contrib with addressing these in a
> way that would minimize the distress to our users, many of whom have
> become very dependent upon Debian's current archive architecture.
Kudos to Craig. This is constructive dissent that approaches the issue
with possible solutions, instead of "I'm right, you're wrong."
It is possible for Debian to be 100% about Free Software, without abandoning
our users who use non-free. If we can do this, why shouldn't we?
Regards,
Steve
Reply to: