Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
First, as Anthony pointed out, we (Debian) haven't deprived any one,
it's the original authors who have done so.
On 13-Jun-00, 01:50 (CDT), John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> 3. Is it wrong to deprive someone of source code to software?
>
> 4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the ability and right to
> fix or modify his own software?
>
> 5. Is it right to deprive people the ability and right to
> fix or modify software that Debian distributes?
The majority of software in non-free does not, in fact, limit these
rights. It either limits the right to distribute such changes, or
commercial use. So your questions would promote a change in what we will
accept into non-free, not the removal of non-free.
> 6. Is it right for Debian to engage in activities that encourage
> the spread of such ability- and right-depriving software?
Others have argued that by distributing non-free programs, and marking
them as such, we raise awareness of those programs non-free-ness, and
promote either a change in the programs license or the developement of a
replacement, If user's have to grab such programs from somewhere else,
all they know is "it's not in the Debian archive", and may never read
the license closely.
You may not agree with such an argument, or at least not that such
benefit is sufficient to override other harms, but it does have some
weight, I believe.
> Do you not see the logical fallacy of all these positions? 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. 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.
You've forgotton the third possibility: There is significant burden
in using the non-free software (not only in obtaining the code,
but in dealing with inconsitencies, policy violations, multiple
bug-tracking systems, etc.), but that popularity does not drop, because
the functionality is not currently available in free software.
I believe that because Debian has such high standards, and clearly
distinguishes free and non-free software, many (most?) of our users do
make an effort to select free packages to meet their needs, and only
select non-free programs when the free choices are inadequate. Making
it harder for them to find and use such packages doesn't remove their
requirements, nor does it force them to write a free replacement
(because it will *always* be easier to find and use the non-free version
than develop new code).
> In either case, there is no net harm to the users or to the Free
> Software community.
This is true only if the time of our users is valueless. I don't believe
that's true.
You've written repeatedly that no harm is done our users by removing non-free,
but I haven't seen a list of removing it benefits either them or the
community. (I might easily have missed such a list in the multitude of
postings...).
Steve
Reply to: