Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. I am saying that the very same ethical arguments that we use
for excluding software from main apply to excluding software from our
FTP site. This is not a novel question. It has been answered already
ad naseum.
> > 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.
Me too. You see, I am aware of difference between the different
licenses. I simply do not care. It is not because I believe the DFSG
is perfect. Rather, it's becuase I believe restricting our users'
freedoms is wrong -- and, moreover, ultimately harmful. We will have a
better project if we do not engage in that sort of activity, even if it
is only a few users whose freedoms are trampeled, and even if those
freedoms are only lightly trampeled.
> > 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.
I never said this should be the sole reason for removing non-free, and I
agree that it does not stand by itself. However, it does help tilt the
scale.
> > 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.
Not everyone, for sure. There are a lot of people that have been deeply
concerned about the lower quality that must inevitably result if Debian
no longer carries non-free on its servers.
I think that the quality is more likely to rise than fall :-)
> > 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
The distinction exists, but it is not a useful one here.
> 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'.
I care nothing of the label. I care about WHY it's in non-free, and
that is the reason I want it gone.
Reply to: