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:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > then explain why software that is almost-free (e.g. software that is free for
> > use or modification but is prohibited from commercial sale) should not be
> > distributed at all by debian. explain why free-but-patent-restricted software
> > should not be distributed at all by debian. explain why software that is free
> > for personal or educational use should not be distributed at all by debian.
> > explain why software that is free for all but use by government agencies or
> > spammers or whoever should not be distributed at all by debian.
>
> 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. 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.
>
You two have just turned on a lightbulb for me :) Without being too
controversial -
1.) The Debian Free Software Guidelines are just that - guidelines. The
Project chooses to follow them. As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence
changes. The KDE stand on principle produced huge flamewars at the
time and a great deal of incomprehension - but ultimately to beneficial
effect.
BUT
2.) We don't (and can't) support non-free software as DFSG - if
we could it would already be in main :)
(This also hearks back to the start of the Open Source Definition -
Bruce Perens has a huge amount to answer for, one way and another - and
the resultant flamewars and wreckage.
[The OSD was a slightly modified DFSG to suit a different audience
and to attempt to de-emphasise some of the confusion over various shades
of meaning of "free" software] ).
Try this for size (meant as a suggestion for discussion/comment and
not purely to promote flamewars).
Prior to considering or passing any GR to remove the non-free section or
Debian infrastructure supporting it, the Debian Project should
a.) Rename non-free to "non-DFSG-free" or simply "non-DFSG". Debian has
gained a lot of reputation and standing by setting up and sticking to
the DFSG over the years: this relatively simple change would emphasise
_why_ Debian considers this software as non-free without penalising
those using it.
b.) Potentially, merge contrib into main: the packages within contrib
are, by their nature, DFSG free but may need non-DFSG software to build,
for example.
c.) Document that fact in the relevant package descriptions. Don't
"recommend" non-DFSG in apt/deselect - which removes one of rms's problems -
but continue to allow users to select non-DFSG and other potential
sources when setting up their APT sources lists as a pragmatic step.
[A UK Linux magazine which put out Woody on DVD recently went still
further and added links to Woody backports as a matter of course.]
HTH,
Andy
Reply to: