Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:09:22PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in
> > common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
>
> Many of us are actually aware of what is in non-free, as we took part
> in discussions leading to its placement there.
yes. that does apply to some of us, including me.
i have no idea why you're mentioning it, though, because it doesn't seem to
apply to you. according to NM, you only applied to become a developer in
October 2003, many years after we discussed the social contract and DFSG.
some of us old-timers deeply resent that the spirit of open-ness and tolerance
that debian exemplified in the early days is being subverted by
johnny-come-lately intolerant bigots. if you didn't agree with the social
contract then why the hell did you join up?
> > Aside from the convenience for our users, this has also been useful
> > in motivating some software authors to get their programs out of the
> > non-free ghetto by changing the license to one that is truly free.
>
> I'd expect the prospect of an author's software no longer being
> distributed by Debian would be an even greater impetus.
actually, no. it doesn't work like that. if it's not in debian, then all that
means is that it's not in debian - there could be any reason why not. however,
if it's in non-free then that makes a statement about that particular program -
it says that it is not free software as we define it.
this makes users think about software and freedom, it makes them wonder why we
consider it to be non-free when it seems like it's free. it gives us a
platform to explain why, for instance, pine's license is inadequate, or why
djb's licenses all suck.
just as importantly, it makes the author think about software and freedom.
sometimes (unless they are djb) they change their license because of this.
non-free has proven to be a very useful political tool as well as a practical
one.
re: data and documentation:
> > the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really
> > makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all.
>
> In numerous cases, it makes a difference to me.
how, exactly?
> I assume there are other trivial examples where the inability to modify a
> dataset and distribute the resultant work is imparing.
then you have the freedom to not use the non-free data, and you also have the
freedom to create your own DFSG-free replacement.
until you've done that, kindly refrain from interfering with those who want or
need to use the non-free data that is available now.
> For example, consider the doom WAD files.
if you want to be able to freely distribute doom wad files, then make your own
graphics and sounds etc. there's nothing stopping you.
until you've done that, kindly refrain ......
> Or consider the case when upstream has gone away, and the data needs to be
> corrected. Un-modifiable works are a dead end.
yes, they can become a dead end. that certainly is one possible outcome.
they can also be very useful to people.
> > - get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their own
> > computers.
>
> The issue here is not what other people run on their own computers. The issue
> is what Debian will and will not distribute.
no, the issue is precisely that some people can not stand the thought that
other people might not make the morally-superior choice of using only DFSG-free
software.
so they take the morally-inferior action of inflicting their choices on
everyone else.
craig
Reply to: