Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
> > > quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
> >
> > That is only a problem for non-free or contrib packages that are not
> > well maintained. So let's kick out of non-free (and contrib) all
> > packages of bad quality and be done with it. Probably nobody will
> > complain about those anyway, and if they do, they should start fixing
> > the quality issues.
>
> That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free.
What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a
reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it
has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it
is a good thing for its eventual removal.
> > > this is something that could be improved more *outside* Debian than
> > > within it. If we cannot distribute and support software in a quality
> > > fashion, we should not do so at all.
> >
> > I trust debian, i may not trust a random outside source. And then, there
> > is the question of the BTS.
>
> But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly
> on trust.
Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of
lower quality.
> Debian also does not have a monopoly on BTS systems. Reportbug is
> already aware of this. From /usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers:
>
> Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility
> too.
> They just need to add a "send-to" header to the control file
> /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the
maintainer.
> > Mmm, if we really would want to be ethical, then we should not
> > distribute software that is allowed to be used for commiting non-ethical
> > things, mass murder and other such stuff for example. Come to think of
>
> I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is
> usable as a tool for mass murder.
Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ?
> However, it is true that one could use Debian for good or bad. There
> are different ways to evaluate the ethics in such a situation.
> Philosophers write volumes upon the topic. One way is utilitarianism,
> which I used in my paper Ethics of Free Software [1], written back in
> 1998.
>
> One definition of utilitarianism is: Everyone ought to act so as to
> bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of
> people. Some modern philosophers throw probability into the mix as
> well, so as you evaluate each individual outcome, you also consider the
> probability of it occuring.
>
> That is, in abstract, utilitarianism can be thought of roughly as:
>
> ethics = happiness * people * probability
Much speak for not saying much. I believe everyone deep inside himself
knows what is good and what is not.
> Where, of course, happiness could be positive or negative, and
> probability is the likelihood that the specific action you're
> investigating will occur.
>
> When we look at Debian, we can readily see the great utility that it has
> for so many people. We can also realize that there are instances of
> unhappiness caused by Debian, such as spammers or crackers that use our
> operating system. Yet, on balance, I think it is pretty obvious that
> there has been far more good than ill come from our OS.
Ok, fine with me.
> > it, we are already bared to distribute our software to some countries.
> > Sure, this is a restriction of the US governement, but why should we
> > limit our freedom in distributing software because of a governement most
> > of its citizen didn't vote for, and who is not recognized by most of the
> > debian developers. Because it is convenient to host our debian servers
> > on US territory ?
>
> To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is
> practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as
> far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in
> countries that do not have those restrictions.
Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is
sent to the US governement.
> > > Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on
> > > its own, without the crutch of non-free.
> >
> > It can already, where is the problem.
>
> If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing
> non-free.
Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, this is again an ethical question. If you are a business, and are
> > making money of said software, then you can pay whatever you like for
> > the non-free stuff if you want to use it, be it a post card, a friendly
> > mail, or some real money to support the developer. Or you can contribute
> > to developing a free alternative.
>
> Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money
Well, in that case, you can go to the author of the piece of software
you need, and reach an agreement with him. What is the problem with
that.
> to spare. For instance, someone that works part-time from home may not
> be in a position to support these things. Also, it is not necessarily
Crap. Most of the licence apply to redistribution, rarely to use. And
anyway, those are really a minority of the non-free cases.
> possible to buy rights to non-free software, or it may be prohibitively
> expensive; or the original developers may be unreachable.
Yeah, that is another problem.
Still, what does it change for him that debian distribute non-free or
not, nothing.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
>
> [1] http://www.complete.org/publications/fsethics/
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: