Re: netscape security hole
Marko Cehaja wrote:
> Dear friend,
>
> > > You didn't read the social contract and I consider this childish, that you
> > > even reply before that.
> >
> > Yes, I did. Accusing me of not reading it when you actually don't have the
> > slightest clue as to whether I did or not is childish.
> ...
> > > require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software
> > > Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP
> > > archive for this software. The software in these directories is not part
> > > of the Debian system
> > >
> > > Can you spot that sentence "is not part of the..."?
> >
> > Uhh, gee that's a hard one. I'll guess ... the last one?
> >
> > Seems a load of double talk. If something is not part of Debian, why make
> > it available? Why not just stick with an installation package like is used
> > for RealPlayer?
>
> You see - those words lead me to the opinion that you might have read the
> social contract, you might be right about reading it, but you didn't understand
> it at all. Otherwise, you wouldn't ask why make some software available for
> Debian or why stick with an installation package.
>
> Please clear the words which you don't understand in social contract.
The words themselves are easy enough. It's what the apparent interpretation
is that's got me baffled. They say that they won't do non-free, but they'll
make it available anyway. And even repackage it for you. But it still
won't be part of the distro. Even though it's right there. That's just
downright confusing.
So I will ask yet again. Whay not go with an installation package for all
of the evil nasty non-free software, like they did for RealPlayer? And
while I'm at it, why is some non-free stuff packaged up and other non-free
stuff uses an installation package?
> > So do I. The one I use the most is Helix Gnome. Since it *did* come from
> > outside of Debian, I do not consider it as part of Debian. Packages that
> > *did* come from the Debian site I do consider part of Debian.
>
> You are free to consider whatever you like. However, the meaning of words:
> "Debian GNU/Linux OS" - is not the same as - server called "debian.org"
>
> > And I'll ask again, why does Debian make it available off of their server,
> > already prepackaged? Why not go with an installation package as used for
> > RealPlayer? That should satisfy both the zealots and the realists. It
> > seems to have worked with RealPlayer.
>
> You are really interesting and amusing.
I do try. ::grin::
> Didn't you say you have read the social contract? Hmm. Those questions are
> answered there.
I even went back and re-read it. Twice. I still don't see why the
difference between an installation package and actual packaging. I even
just now went back and read it through again. Nowhere in that Social
Contract is there anything saying why the differentiation between packaging
a supposedly non-free package and using an installation package.
> Look. There is Windoze OS. Many people make software for Windows. Does
> it mean it is part of Windows?
Microsoft would sure like it to be, but no.
> If you go to Microsoft site, you can get there a lot of software. But many
> of that software are not part of Windoze OS.
All you can get there a lot of *links* to software. Pretty much all that
can actually be downloaded straight from them is their own stuff.
> Magic words are: social-contract.
Which I've read, re-read, and read yet again. But I still don't get it.
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and
| everything is of great understanding,
'91 GS500E | for belief in one false principle is the
Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.
Reply to: