On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:50:09AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> You are making a sweeping overgeneralization. Let me start by drawing
> some useful analogies:
> 4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the ability and right to
> fix or modify his own software?
Is it wrong to deprive someone of the ability and right to fix or modify
*your* own software?
That's one of the things with "intellectual property": just because
you have a copy of the software, it doesn't make it yours. While we,
personally, may not think this makes much sense, it is the way it's seen
by significant groups of people, with some justification.
The Debian project's gone ahead and said that while it may not be
wrong, it's preferable if you don't do this: so that it can be kept
uptodate with policy if you disappear, so that it can be distributed in
a convenient manner (for-profit CDs, etc), and so that it can be used
by anyone. (Note that some non-free software can be fixed and modified,
but simply not commercially distributed, or not used by people developing
nuclear capabilities, or whatever)
> 5. Is it right to deprive people the ability and right to
> fix or modify software that Debian distributes?
This is misleading wrt order of events: the ability and right are already
deprived, it's whether Debian distributes the software in spite of this
that's under question.
> 6. Is it right for Debian to engage in activities that encourage
> the spread of such ability- and right-depriving software?
Personally, I believe that distributing non-free software aids free
software far more than it aids non-free software. You're perfectly allowed
to disagree, but "that the non-free component encourages the spread of
such ability- and right-depriving software" is one of the questions of
this debate.
For comparison, distributing alpha-quality free software can be seen to
aid non-free software: "Hey! Look how much this free stuff *SUCKS*! Let's
go back to Microsoft now!". The benefits to free software (more testers)
are much more important, though.
> Let non-free osftware be distributed by
> those that care about it. Let us focus on Free Software.
Some of us do care about it, as evidenced by this flamewar.
And equally, those of us who want to focus on free software, can and do.
Just as Debian's not really about supplying non-free software to people
(that's just one of the things some of us feel has been necessary and
useful in the past, and that some of us feel is still necessary and
useful in the present), Debian's also not really about making a political
statement (although members of the Debian project often do). Presuming
that everyone wants to focus solely on the same things you do --- even
free software --- isn't all that justified.
> If you
> claim that non-free's popularity will plummet because we no longer
> carry it, you must agree that it becomes less beneficial for people to
> publish non-free software, which encourages Free licensing.
That assumes that non-free software is published by people who care about
the number of Debian users who use it. I doubt that that's particularly
the case: they're already not overly concerned that people who ignore
or disapprove of stuff in non-free, and there's more than enough other
distributions of Linux, and more than enough people who don't care about
distributions who'll use the program for any egotistical benefits.
> If, on
> the other hand, you feel as I that there is not necessarily a
> significant burden in getting non-free software from another source,
> than that contradicts your first inference.
Necessarily? No, we're in a fairly malleable domain, just about anything
*can* be achieved and made trivially easy.
In all probability? Personally, I suspect obtaining non-free software
will become noticably more inconvenient, and that maintaining non-free
software will become a downright pain in the neck.
> In either case, there is no net harm to the users or to the Free
> Software community.
I remain unconvinced, too.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgp5E8Cin9qz0.pgp
Description: PGP signature