On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > >> While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still > >> vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot. > > > How is this information useful to anyone? Is there any form the > > proposal could take that you *wouldn't* rank below the default > > option? > > Well, in most other peoples opinion I am not Raul, I take it this was an attempt at humor? > but let me respond anyway. If there was a reasonable expectation that > users of software present on Debian servers that does not meet the > DFSG would continue to get a equivalent quality of support for that > software that the debian distribution servers, the debian bts, and > attention from debian developers assures them, I would rank it above > the default option. Okay. Can you provide an example of how that reasonable expectation could be established, in your opinion? > I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which > there is not yet a free replacement, As I noted in another reply, I do not share this premise, though I can see why some people would. > so that our usaers can use Debian, not as a pedantically pure toy, I do not understand how removal of non-free reduces the Debian distribution to a "pedantically pure toy". I suspect there are many people who are able to get their work done without using packages from the non-free section. My workstation where I employed is one example (I've had non-free Debian packages installed on it in the past -- some months ago -- but they were so restrictively licensed even Debian could not distribute them). > but as a useful tool in a world that is not yet all libre software, I do not understand how it is non-free software that *makes* Debian useful. That Debian's utility to some audiences can be enhanced through the use of packages that happen not to be freely licensed is probably not in dispute. That the Debian Project is an essential clearing house for such packages is, apparently. > in the hope that, just like netscape, free replacements shall render > the software in non-free obsolete. I do not hold out such hopes in the general case. Whether a non-free piece of software is likely to be re-implemented freely is influenced by many variables, and definitely not an inevitability. I suspect that in many cases a non-free work doesn't get rewritten because not enough people feel it needs to be. Do you personally have an itch to rewrite tome or zangband, or are you fairly content with them as-is? > I would much rather the non-free section withered away because > there was no need for it, because no developer felt the need to > populate it with stuff they needed or wantred; Some might call me a pessimist, but I don't think that is going to happen for a very long time. > rather than decreeing its abolishment by a HR dictum. I take it you mean "GR vote"? What is abhorrent about voting on this? If you feel there are areas of Project management that should not be trusted to our democratic processes, please propose a GR to amend the Constitution and disempower the developers accordingly. > > It's well-known that there are people who are vehemently opposed to > > anything but the status quo, and some others who'd rather demolish > > the distinction between non-free and main entirely. > > Ah yes. Polemics. Smear the opposition, rather than counter > any arguments. And so it starts. Are you trying to be distracting, or is your sincere contention that: 1) No one is strongly opposed to the status quo WRT non-free; and 2) No one is interested in eliminating the distinction between non-free and main entirely. (Note that the above describes disjunct sets of people, as the latter is obviously not the status quo.) Is Alex Yukhimets still with us? > > Please define "decent alternative for that infrastructure". What > > specifically do you expect people to be able to accomplish with a > > parallel infrastructure when the existing suffices? > > I would be willing to move my non-free packages over to the > parrallel infrastructure -- and even help with some of the upkeep, > even thought that would take time away from Debian. I can't, however, > undertake to setup all the infrastructure by myself -- I do not have > the resources. Would you then (subsequently) support the removal of non-free from Debian, or are there other criteria you'd like to see met first? If Debian is but a "pedantically pure toy" without the non-free section, then I would hope that you would not endorse a proposal that would damage it thus. > > People who raise this point often seem to be constructing a > > catch-22; if we don't have an "alternative infrastructure" in place > > before dropping Debian's support for non-free, then there is a > > "pragmatic" objection to dropping non-free; however, if the > > alternative infrastructure is expected to be in wide use, then the > > people who participate in the current infrastructure are going to > > have to migrate to it pro-actively in expectation that a GR > > elimninating will pass, which they can help defeat by refusing to > > move and citing their own stubbornness as evidence that no > > "alternative infrastructure" exists. > > Aha. Yet another: I conjecture my opposition are nasty, > manipulative, non fair playing jerks, so it justifies anything I say > or do. Rather well done, Mr. Robinson, this is a nice turn of > phrase. So, it is your contention that this tension does not exist? It would be helpful if you'd rebut my points instead of indulging in personal attacks. > > I reject such callow and unprincipled[1] tactics. Hopefully you > > mean something less unsavory. > > Of course, if I may point out, these tactics usually are ones > you propose that your opposition shall employ, and then denounce > the depths to which your opposition is likely to succumb. I'd be quite delighted if people wouldn't earn my disappointment by refraining from doing things that disappoint me, but, as I have weathered years of disappobration from, say, you, with little in the way of respite, I do confess that I cannot be rationally optimistic about such things. > Now, can we get back to a reasonable discussion, rather than > theorizing how low our opposition can sink? That would appear to be up to you. -- G. Branden Robinson | Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, Debian GNU/Linux | and I have disposable income that branden@debian.org | I'll spend to find out how to get http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | people more of it. -- Penn Jillette
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature