Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:26:44AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> In all the cases that I've been involved with, where the resultant
> software has been freed, the presence or absence of the software in
> Debian has not been the the most important factor. What matters is
> communication with upstream with the goal of freeing the software.
ncftp, Qt and, by extension, KDE are three that i can think of off the top of
my head that had their licenses changed/clarified/made free in part because
debian relegated them to non-free (and contrib). i'm sure other people can
think of more, it certainly wouldn't be hard to find more examples if one
searched for them.
ncftp became free because we put it in non-free and pointed out that it could
not legally use the GPL readline library. the author saw our point and changed
the license. i mention this one because it is the first one that i can clearly
remember happening.
until debian made a fuss about Qt being non-free, thus forcing KDE into
contrib, nobody gave a damn about the fact that an important desktop
environment was being based on a non-free library.
it took a long time, but the furore that we created was instrumental in both
KDE & Qt becoming really free software, and also instrumental in the formation
of the Gnome project.
these things happened, in part, because debian had a non-free section. as i
mentioned in a previous message, non-free is a very useful political tool.
> > > > 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 work with large data sets all the time in my research (I work with gene
> microarrays, currently studying Alzheimer's Disease.) Quite often I have to
> extract information from them, or use the in manners that their original
> publishers did not intend. Datasets with restrictive licenses keep me from
> making the actual dataset used in my observations public, so people can
> easily verify and check the results.
so, DON'T USE THEM.
you are no worse off due to the existence of these non-free data sets.
if they weren't there you still wouldn't be able to publish because you
wouldn't have the data to work with.
> > > 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.
>
> Obviously, but this is a case where the fact that modified versions
> cannot be redistributed makes a pratical difference to someone, which
> was the point under discussion.
no, it doesn't make any difference. you are no worse off than you would be if
they didn't exist or if you didn't have access to them - you still wouldn't be
able to distribute them.
if the license makes them unsuitable for your needs then DON'T USE THEM.
why is that so difficult to understand?
> > 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.
>
> We're discussing whether or not Debian should distribute works that
> are not DFSG free, not whether we should allow our users to use works
> that are non DFSG free.
please stop pretending that there are no practical consequences to this.
> You may argue that it is morally inferior for us to fail to make it
> easy for people to make a morally inferior choice, but to claim that
> we are restraining people from using non-free software is ludicrous at
> best.
it is morally inferior to renege on a promise.
it is morally inferior to sabotage existing infrastructure merely to inflict
your ideological choices on others.
craig
Reply to: