[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?

On Du, 04 dec 11, 11:36:57, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> Hello Debian People !

Are you aware we are just users?
> What's your opinion ?

A somewhat similar case: instant messenger clients. Not long ago some of 
the free (as in beer) instant messaging providers made incompatible 
changes to their protocols. It was a pain for users as most had to 
upgrade pidgin and a backport was not immediately available (imagine 
*days* without instant messaging, what a disaster :p ).

Does this mean we should remove all clients accessing non-free services 
(or disable the respective option if the client can also use free (as in 
freedom) protocols)?

IMVHO, as long as its code itself is free why not ship it? It would be a 
big dis service to the users and would not convince the providers to 
change their policies (we are still too few to count). Also, as far as I 
know it is not forbidden to reverse-engineer a communication protocol 
(assuming it is not public anyway), otherwise Samba would have been in 
trouble loooong ago.

I think that making it easier for users to switch to free software (even 
partially, pidgin works fine also on Windows) helps more to spread the 
word about free software[1], than taking an extreme stance and just 
banish everything that might come in touch with non-freeness.

[1] a lot of Firefox-on-Windows users I know actually have no idea that 
it is *also* free software, besides being gratis, but it is always a 
good example when they are ready to listen about it.

Regarding your mention of the "man on deserted island" test:
- all software depending on some central service would stop working 
  anyway, even if the service was free (as in freedom)
- the code of the client program could help to write a server program 
  from scratch to communicate with fellow stranded people :D

Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: