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.
>
> > 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. Regardless,
> software doesn't magically become free. People who care about it
> generally have to work with the upstream author to explain why the
> software should be freed, and help them to do it.
Yep, but can that not be easier be done in the context of distributing
things in non-free ? If it is just removed, upstream authors might just
stop worrying about debian, and they can either do hand installs or run
some other linux distrib or something.
In the end run, it hurts our users more than it hurts the upstream
author.
> > 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. I assume there are
> other trivial examples where the inability to modify a dataset and
> distribute the resultant work is imparing. For example, consider the
> doom WAD files.
Sure, but would a non-free package of those, with an attached BTS, and
some chain of trust to the devel not be more valuable than a random
third party source for it ?
> Or consider the case when upstream has gone away, and the data needs
> to be corrected. Un-modifiable works are a dead end.
Sure, but in this case, it may be possible to get upstream author to
free or replace them. Or at least they provide a yardstick to compare to
for doing the free implementation. It is still better to have them
around than to not have them.
> > - 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.
And what debian developers are allowed to work on inside of debian's
infrastructure.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: