Packages moving the dist (Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure)
Please stop insult the other maintainers!
In <[🔎] 20001028214052.E10318@debian.org>,
on "Sat, 28 Oct 2000 21:40:52 -0500",
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> wrote:
knghtbrd> > > I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it was
knghtbrd> > > previously distributed under a free but only distribute as pristin source +
knghtbrd> > > patch (well no binaries). and couldn't go even in non-free without permission
knghtbrd> > > from the author. There are loads of GPLed and other free stuff which depended
knghtbrd> > Its a free package but can not even go into non-free? I don't get that.
knghtbrd>
knghtbrd> ... he considers it free enough, apparently, despite Debian's silly
knghtbrd> guidelines that say otherwise.
I don't think that Sven thought that the DFSG is silly.
Just read what he wrote carefully.
In <[🔎] 20001026114108.A21769@lambda.u-strasbg.fr>,
on "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:41:08 +0200",
with "Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure",
Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
luther> > > I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it was
luther> > > previously distributed under a free but only distribute as pristin source +
luther> > > patch (well no binaries). and couldn't go even in non-free without permission
luther> > > from the author. There are loads of GPLed and other free stuff which depended
luther> > Its a free package but can not even go into non-free? I don't get that.
luther>
luther> it was not free, because don't permit the distribution of binaries compiled
luther> from modified source (and adding a debian dir constitute a modification in the
luther> eyes of the lawyers). You cannot fix bug in such a package. Also packages that
luther> depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in
luther> non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled
luther> differently by every user. I don't know what this can make to bug reports.
luther>
luther> > > This is no netscape or sun, they distribute rpms of the packages, but simply
luther> > > lack the time for debian packaging (i guess so, also i suspect most of them
luther> > > don't use debian). Sure i could propose as volunteer to package it for them,
luther> > > but i would prefer to do it for debian (well no more a problem since the
luther> > > package is free now).
luther> > Now its free again? Even weirder...
luther>
luther> yes, after almost two years, the author changed the licence and it is free
luther> now.
I believe Sven thinks that the DFSG is worthy of his two years for
his difficult management with the author of that software in order
to change the mind of the author. If he think the DFSG silly, then
why he tried and did so difficult thing using his own precious time ?
I know that knghtbrd had spent his precious time for the negotiation with
the Qt authors to solve the problem of KDE (which has been solved now).
And I don't think it was in vain, even if knghtbrd himself did think so.
Here is some statistics from the packages file in our ftp servers:
31 bo_contrib_packages (3.16%:bo_main)
101 hamm_contrib_packages (6.63%:hamm_main)
97 slink_contrib_packages (4.28%:slink_main)
124 potato_contrib_packages (3.20%:potato_main)
115 bo_non-free_packages (11.73%:bo_main)
227 hamm_non-free_packages (14.90%:hamm_main)
298 slink_non-free_packages (13.13%:slink_main)
323 potato_non-free_packages (8.34%:potato_main)
980 bo_main_packages
1524 hamm_main_packages
2269 slink_main_packages
3871 potato_main_packages
5 hamm_main-to-potato_non-free (0.328%:hamm_main)
5 slink_main-to-potato_non-free (0.220%:slink_main)
21 bo_non-free-to-potato_main (18.261%:bo_non-free)
31 bo_main-to-potato_non-free (3.163%:bo_main)
31 slink_non-free-to-potato_main (10.403%:slink_non-free)
38 hamm_non-free-to-potato_main (16.740%:hamm_non-free)
The left most numbers are the number of packages in the specific conditions.
This shows that more than 1 of 6th of non-free in bo has changed its license
to be main in the potato, while 1 of 33th of main in bo has moved into
non-free in potato. The latter does not directly mean the change of the
license, but it includes the re-evaluation of the license after the creation
of the Social Contract and the DFSG (please remind of the release date of bo).
And the number of packages which have moved from non-free in hamm or slink
into main in poatato, is more than 6 or 7 times larger than the number of
packages which have moved from main in hamm or slink into non-free in potato.
I think this statistics shows the effort done by lots of maintainers,
and do very apprecitate them.
Why so pessimistic to be ? Why can't believe in/trust the fellow members
and the idea of the Free Softwares ?
We are the Debian members who have faith on the future of the Free Softwares,
aren't we ?
Please don't depreciate what our fellow members done in order to promote
and evagelize our DFSG. What they achieved is far more important than
silly flame-war in small mailing list.
--
Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
Reply to: