Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:07:15PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > BTW, George: You said nasty things on this list. You are free to change your
> > distribution, but please refrain from prejudices --- we actually try our
> > best to include every software available. But sometimes we are not allowed
> > to do so. Blame the upstream author for it (read: ask him politely to change
> > license).
>
> When did the license for Pine change? As far as I know the only thing
> that changed was Debian's interpretation of it. I think it will be the
> only Linux distribution without a Pine binary. I also do not feel I have
> said anything "nasty". I have tried to point out where Debian is making
> what could turn out to be a serious mistake in its thinking and correct
> it.
You are mixing things up here. First, Debian as a whole has not changed the
dfsg (which is its distribution policy) since the creation. It has changed
the interpretation of contrib and non-free, though. To the better. The
current situation is that "contrib" are dfsg-free packages that comply with
the package policy, but depend on non-free stuff. "non-free" are packages
that comply to the packaging policy, but fail the dfsg in some points, and
we are allowed to distribute it on our ftp server.
When you know complain about the removed pine package, then you have two
direct solutions (beside the solution to make your own pine package and put
it on a derived distribution, as you are describing below):
1) You can ask the maintainer of the package why he made this decision.
2) You can ask the upstream authors to clarify/change the license.
I think ranting on a public list instead is not very kind.
> The vast majority of uses of Unix systems in this world have no clue
> how to edit a dotfile. They can't even use vi let alone emacs. I see a
> trend towards alienation of users without a degree in Computer Science. I
> absolutely do NOT want to see Debian head off on some Slackwarian
> direction.
Then you may want to put work into easier use of Debian (you say that you
are actually doing so, I read below). I remember that you do great things on
debian-user, asking questions etc. This is the way to go. You can even put a
deb package of pine somewhere on ftp you own.
But trying to push a volunteer (or even a group) in the direction you like
will just not work.
To be more concrete: If the maintainer of a package decides that it is too
high risk to put a package in non-free because of the copyright, he is free
doing so. I did not speak with either the maintainer nor with the upstream
authors about this issue, so I'll not impose any judgement on either.
> > *We* can't change the license, and we will not change our policy
> > for pine or other non-free software.
>
> You already DID change your policy, I am asking to have it changed BACK.
There is no need to shout. I stay with what I said. There is no way you can
force the debian maintainer to put it back, but you can ask nicely for the
reasons and if there is a solution. You can even become a maintainer of pine
for yourself, and get the diff's ratificated by upstream authors.
> If the Debian diff is nothing more that items needed to get it to compile
> and the locations of where things are to be put in the filesystem, that is
> not a change to pine, those are configuration items. I can not see how
> configuration conflicts with the license. Now there was a "what-if"
> question raised about "what if" debian decided to make a change to the
> source code for security reasons or whatever and I say that you should
> burn that bridge when you come to it.
There are two issues: One issue is the copyright (the procedure you
describe above may work for some time), the other is that there has to be a
volunteer to do it --- no volunteer, no package.
> > If you dislike this, there are other distributions that can make commercial
> > agreements with upstream authors --- we are a voluntarily effort, and can
> > not do such agreements (instead, we request that other's must have the same
> > right as the Debian distribution. We don't like exceptions made for us, and
> > will not make use of them). This is to protect *your* right to distribute
> > the Debian distribution.
>
> I am completely aware of this. I have been an advocate of Debian
> GNU/Linux for a couple of years now. I see what is happening now as
> something entirely different. It APPEARS as if Debian is actually looking
> for excuses to make non-free or less-free software more difficult to
> install and use in order to promote wider use of the free software even
> when it is clearly not as good or not as easy to use.
I can hardly think of anything to say about it, beside that it is just not
true. The packages in non-free are just as well maintained as the packages
in the main distribution, and they are equally hard or easy to install.
I think you act overly paranoid here.
> I would like some
> reassurance that this is not happening. If it is, I will save myself a
> lot of time and bail now.
You already have the reassurance, as you know the dfsg and other documents.
Those define the official position of Debian. The rest is done on a
voluntarily base. "Debian" as a whole can't force anyone to mainatin a
package! If pine is so important to you, that you would even make the effort
packaging it, despite the possibly danger of having to remove it from the
archive at some time, I think you are welcome to do so. But the current
maintainer is free to not spent his time on it.
> Debian has the best packaging system and the best integrated distribution.
> It should concentrate on getting as much as possible into the distribution
> and not on playing politics to build a cross on which to crucify it.
You are always speaking of "Debian", but it is just a bunch of people. The
"interest" of Debian is the sum of the interest of the people. Most people
prefer to work on free software, but many people also spent their time on
non-free packages, which is just as fine.
Your analogy with the cross is overly extreme. Please keep calm.
> I have a project I am working on that will be based on Debian. Yes it will
> have Pine and that will be the default text mail reader for the user and
> yes, it will have Pico and that will be the default text-mode editor for
> new users. Removing Pine does not make it any better, only adds another
> step in the configuration of the system. It is not going to promote the
> use of any alternative software in my case, it just makes the "cost" of
> using Debian go up a bit.
You are misunderstanding something: Everyone is happy if you build such a
system. But not everyone wants to spent his time on it. So, you can't blame
us for not having pine in our distribution. Yes, it means a bit more work
for your project, but it is always a bad idea to complain to loud about a
voluntary project when it is just in own interest.
> There is free and there is free-enough. Politically Correct Software is
> not a goal. Utillity for the end user is.
Politically Correct Software actually *is* a goal. Please read the dfsg at
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: