Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The simple answer is: the reason that we should not distribute them is
> the same as the reason that they are not DFSG-free. You can, I'm sure,
> search voluminous archives for illuminating discussions upon all those
> points with relation to the DFSG.
No, that's not a reason to not distribute them. that's a reason to put them in
non-free. that, strangely enough, is precisely why non-free exists.
> The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can be
> used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me.
last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the
get-rid-of-nonfree zealots of this. someone else accused me of being
delusional.
well, i'm glad that we've got that cleared up now.
> There are several reasons that we should not distribute software that is
> not DFSG-free. Some include:
>
> Confusion. Many people incorrectly assume that software in non-free is
what a load of crap. i thought you lot stopped trotting this one out a few
years ago....obviously your arguments haven't improved.
there will always be people who are confused by anything no matter how it is
explained, no matter the facts of the situation. this is because there are a
lot of stupid people in the world. catering to them is a perilous path.
> Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
this one is actually close to reasonable. however, everyone knows that
non-free is the bastard son and does not expect the exact same level of
consistent high quality as for main.
in short, people can deal with it. they certainly have managed to do so, so
far.
> Ethics. We are here because we value Free Software and believe that it
> is valuable to us and the world. Non-free software is everything that
> we are not. Non-free means lack of freedom to use software like you
> want. Non-free means lack of the ability to alter it like you want. It
> means lack of ability to give altered copies to people you want to. It
> may even mean lack of the ability to fix grave bugs in the software.
here, again, is proof of what i said. you do not distinguish at all between
proprietary software and semi-free software. your position is entirely
ideological, not based on reality. you do not care about what is actually IN
non-free, all you care about is the fact that it is labeled 'non-free' and is
thus polluting debian's 'ideological purity'.
> There is nothing more antithetical to the very foundation of Debian than
> this.
the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
debian is doomed, we distribute some not-quite-free software. the end of the
world is nigh.
> We have proven to the world that a free operating system can compete
> with the best proprietary operating systems.
>
> Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on
> its own, without the crutch of non-free.
glorious words.
trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
it's a bunch of stuff that is useful or interesting or amusing or entertaining
to some people.
> *That* should be a powerful motivator to all those people that need one to
> relicense their software.
nope.
it doesn't work that way.
debian not packaging something happens all the time. it has nowhere near the
motivating power that putting a package in non-free does.
> > there is a huge difference between almost-free software and proprietary
> > software.
>
> If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only,
> that difference is practically non-existant.
then they simply don't use that software. they are no worse off than they
would be if it didn't exist, while a number of people/orgs who are allowed
to use it ARE better off.
your point seems to be that SOME can't use it, so NOBODY should.
> > there are some items in non-free that i personally think should not be
> > there,
>
> Then you are confusing the "what should be allowed in main" argument with the
> "whether we should distribute things that are not allowed in main" argument.
> They are two distinct questions, and it seems to me that you are attempting
> to influence the second because your opinions on the first were not shared by
> a majority of Debian developers.
huh?
once again you accuse me of talking about main when i am talking about non-free.
please stop putting words in my mouth.
is this really the best that you can do? accuse anyone who is in favour of
keeping non-free of wanting to pollute main with non-free stuff? oooh! what a
scary bogeyman!
craig
Reply to: