Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 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):
Why do you continue to avoid the question? Debian has distributed Pine
in non-free for about two years. As far as I can tell, Pine's license has
not changed. It is Debian's POLICY towards that license that has changed.
THAT is what I want clarified. Pine is not a new package in the
distribution nor is it in a new section of the distribution. Debian has
had its policy for a long time. That is why the package has always been
put in non-free.
> 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.
Then will someone please answer the question? Shooting the messager does
not fix the problem. All I want is an clear answer to the simply question:
Why did Debian change their interpretation?
> 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.
I have been an advocate of Debian in many forums for a long time. I
started using it when it was a.out. I have some packages locally that I
have built for my own use that differ from Debian's and I also get
packages from fuller.edu (like gated) that Debian does not have. I am a
Unix sysadmin by profession (mostly Solaris which is another reason I use
Debian ... I like the init structure) and know what it is like to have to
continually respond to requests to configure things for users. I do not
look at default items from the point of view on MY useage as much as I do
having to maintain it. If I have a few dozen users using text email, I am
sure I do not want mutt because I am going to spend a great deal of time
configuring it for them.
>
> But trying to push a volunteer (or even a group) in the direction you like
> will just not work.
No! I am trying to put the group BACK where it always HAS been. I do not
want to change its direction, I see it already changing and I am trying to
put it BACK on course. I see a general change in attitude on the part of
the developers that I think is incorrect and potentially damaging and want
to try to correct it if possible. I agreed with what the policy always
had been before but I don't know if I agree with it now because nobody
will spell out what that policy IS. Please do not spout off what it says
in the docs, it has said that all along. I want to understand why,
suddenly, licenses mean different things than they have in the past. Same
license, same debian policy ... different interpretation. Why? What
potential does that have for the rest of non-free?
>
> 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.
Please answer the question. Pine has had that same license nearly
forever. Debian has had the same policy. Pine was free-enough to go in
non-free as a binary for a long time. Suddenly it is not. Why.
> 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.
Wait, I missed something .. are you saying that Pine is without a
maintainer? Or are you saying that the maintainer changed and the new
maintainer inpterprets the license differently than the old one? If that
is the case we can hope to possibly convince the new maintainer that he is
full of hooey and put the binary back. I think that would make Debian the
only major distribution that does not have a Pine binary package.
> 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.
But Debian has also maintained a non-free portion for stuff that does not
meet the condifitions of the dfsg. Are you saying that Debian is going to
drop non-free and contrib? I am baffled. "The danger of having to remove
it"? Huh? You seem confused. main is guaranteed to be 100% free.
Non-free is guaranteed to be 100% non-free. I accepted that when I browse
in the non-free archive.
> > 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 think we are loosing focus here. The point is that Pine is one of the
most popular Unix applications in the world. Pico is also usually a
popular editor. To remove the Pine and Pico binaries is basicly to tell
newbies "we don't really care about you and your use of the system is
secondary to our stance on free software". This is backwards, of course,
and the use of the system has to be the first consideration. Without
users, the best software in the world is useless. If you make the cost of
entry to debian too high for newbies, your user base might begin to
shrivel. How is a raw newbie to unix coming from Win95 supposed to get
pine and pico working now? I think much more has been lost than has been
gained.
I have said my piece on the subject. I think it is a grave mistake. I
also think that this subject will be revisited though I will not bring it
up. This decision is the best thing to happen to Red Hat since the GUI
control panel.
George Bonser
If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: