Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
>
> > Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to
> > Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply
> > have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure.
>
> Note the _have to_ above.
> Who will do this?
Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project! Anyway,
since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps
non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those
archives and the bug tracking system?
> > not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot
> > of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will
> > eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK.
>
> Or when XForms goes DFSG-compliant.
> But there's already something missing. What about next year's
> great tool that we don't have a free replacement for?
Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things
themselves can pay money to a consultant. If there is enough interest,
they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If
users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should
everyone expect a free lunch?
> > Other packages may
> > follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian.
>
> Why will this change?
I don't understand your question. If a developer wants her software in
Debian, she might choose to write a DFSG compliant license.
> > Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well.
>
> Insider information? What makes you say this?
> Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license?
Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but:
the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since,
KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant
unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the
code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that
debate.
There are many types of users that depend on Debian. Most of them probably
have a mixture of motives that include both the political (DFSG) and the
practical (apt rules!). However, the argument that Debian should be
worried about keeping all the users is not one that I personally buy.
Thanks. Syrus.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syrus C Nemat-Nasser, PhD | Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials
UCSD Department of Physics | UCSD Department of Mechanical
<syrus@ucsd.edu> | and Aerospace Engineering
Reply to: