Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
> > That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
> > stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
> on its servers.
>
> Anyone, Developer or not, may continue to put as much effort into
> non-free software as they want, with the caveat that Debian resources
> will not be used to aid them.
Ok, you seem to be saying, here, that the focus is NOT on developer
effort, but on the mere presence of "non-free" bug reports and/or packages
on debian servers.
Which brings me back to the question: why is this the point?
> >>> Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved?
> >>
> >> Here are some, with references:
> >> "golden rule" (GNU Manifesto)
> >
> > "I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a
> > program I must share it with other people who like it."
> >
> > So how is this a justification for not sharing programs in
> > non-free with others?
>
> Another section of that document deal with how not sharing source code
> is wrong. "The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
> neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and
> object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used
> rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a
> person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both
> materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so
> regardless of whether the law enables him to."
Ok -- obviously this only applies to that fraction of non-free for which
no source code is avaiable. And in some cases (font files) this isn't
even a meaningful criticism.
This might be a justification for removing some specific packages from
"non-free", but I don't see it as a justification for stopping the
distribution of non-free.
> >
> >> "friendship" (GNU Manifesto)
> >
> > How is "drop the distribution of non-free and let commercial outfits
> > take up that distribution" an example of friendship?
>
> When read along with RMS's opinion on needing source code, "marketing
> arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat
> others as friends."
How, specifically, does that apply in this context?
> >> _Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay)
> >
> > This is a good argument for replacing non-free software with free
> > software. I don't see, however, the justification for dropping the
> > distribution of "non-free" in the absence of such replacements.
>
> "However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is
> no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do." is
> a good line. Right above it, btw, is the one about "[n]one of the users
> can adapt or fix the program" which covers our non-free section
As a general rule, users have far more freedom to adapt or fix programs
in non-free than they to [for example] adapt or fix proprietary microsoft
programs.
Furthermore, if you're really concerned about the ability of users to
adapt and fix programs, you'd be working on something that lets people
type "make install" [or perhaps something like "debian make install"]
in an arbitrary source tree and have it update the dpkg database to
reflect the changes introduced by that install process.
[And version 2 could deal with stuff like aborting the install if this
psuedo package conflicts with some other package. Maybe version 3
could implement Replaces: functionality and version numbers other than
yyyymmdd-hhmmss.]
Or maybe you haven't realized just how hard it is for the typical
user [who might be a developer, but not a debian developer] to use
non-debian-built software on a debian system?
> >> "Proprietary Software" (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software)
> >
> > This talks about how to use words such as "free" and "non-free" in
> > a meaningful fashion. This is not a basis for dropping distribution
> > of non-free.
>
> "The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install
> any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the
> specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program.
> Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a
> proprietary program."
Debian is not the FSF. We support our users who develop and run non-free
software. Your proposal did change the social contract in that fashion.
> > Note, however, that in this context it would probably be better
> > to call our "non-free" software something else more meaningful --
> > perhaps "semi-free".
>
> Some of non-free is only non-free for, e.g., "no commercial use" in the
> license. But a lot of it is non-free because it's quite proprietary: We
> have no source, had we source we have no right to create derivative
> works, etc.
But your proposal eliminates the "semi-free" and "non-software" as well
as the no-source software.
The inapplicability of this rationale to your proposal reminds me of
one of the jokes from the jargon file:
Q: How can you recognize a field circus engineer
who is out of gas?
A: He's changing one tire at a time to see which one is flat.
> >> _Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay)
> >
> > I see nothing here to justify dropping the distribution of
> > non-free.
>
> "However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom
> to choose any license you want for software you write'. We reject this
> because it is really a form of power, not a freedom."
> "Even when there is no monopoly, proprietary software harms society. A
> choice of masters is not freedom."
But your proposal does not propose the elimination of software which
is licensed under the terms of the BSD or X licenses. So, I think that
bringing up this issue in this context is pure hypocrisy.
> Also, if in doubt, I'm sure rms@gnu.org will confirm that he is very
> much morally opposed to distributing non-free software.
But our "non-free" includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he calls
"semi-free" software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
Anyways, if you like, go ahead: ask him how he thinks the social contract
should be written. He's certainly more qualified to express what his
views are than either you or I.
--
Raul
Reply to: