Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:16:48 +0000, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On 2004-01-07 14:13:23 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com>
>>> What is the temporal scope of our social contract? [...] If
>>> forever, [...] Why is there a way to change it in the
>> If you mean dropping promised support with no transition, then
> ...and if I don't?
Well, then, as soon as the transition plan is in place, we can
transition current and future users of non-free software off Debian
resources -- of that GR passes.
> Regardless, why do you think wee can change this, yet it should not
> be changed?
> Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
> Would creating a specific transition plan before knowing whether the
> transition is going to happen be flamed as premature?
Anything can be flamed, including inaction.
> Would adding the words "there will be a transition plan" be enough?
Hmm. Lacking any details, and if the actions proposed are
contingent on such a transition plan, you probably want to flexh it
out, just so that you have a graduation clause.
>> Do these individual packages have active, responsive develpers, and
>> a user community that is engaged? If so (though I rarely bandy
>> around words like "immoral"), yes, that would have been wrong too.
> I am almost certain there have been active developers and users of a
> deleted package.
Could you point out which package was deleted from Debian that
had active DD's?
>>> The "reliability and loyalty" case for non-free is dubious, as we
>>> can't properly test, verify or repair some of it.
>> Why is it dubious? Because you say so? How is it any less testable
>> than the utility of Debian as a whole?
> I think it can be less testable because a "no testing" licence can
> get into non-free. That is part of why I think it dubious, but
Ah, so this is a hypothetical statement. Are there any such
packages in non-free now, and heve there ever been any? If not, this
is a red herring.
> things like inability to repair is more important: users get used to
> some software, then it gets deleted thanks to an unfixable serious
> bug. Ow.
If the problem is serious enough, the users tend to be
supportive, in my experience.
>>> Will that ever happen? Will non-free packagers work towards this?
>> When there is no need for the non-free packages, the packagers
>> shall desist.
> That didn't answer my second question. I think some packagers are
> reluctant to help reduce the need for their non-free packages, so I
Could you name names and give examples, please? Or is this
> suspect that they will never accept their packages are not needed
> and we will never satisfy the "when" part of your answer.
Ah. Since need is a subjective issue, how do yo propose to
determine when there is no need? Would input of actual users be more
important than input from people who have never used the package?
Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be
a hero ... must drink brandy. Samuel Johnson
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C