[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Why not s/non-free/semi-free/g and remove non-free.


I would like to propose changes "s/non-free/semi-free/g" for the social
contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
reorganization "s/non-free/semi-free/g" to remove "non-free" from Debian.

Here is my rationale:

Whereas in the previous discussion on this "removal of non-free", the
proponents of this agenda seem to be most offended by the existence of
archive name "non-free" than the contents in them. Some proponents of
this agenda even proposed the expansion (or loosening) of DSFG as an
option in order to gain wider support for their proposal. 

Whereas the opponent of this agenda worried about practical impacts to
the users and developers by the "removal of non-free" and wanted to keep
the status quo.  The above proposed middle-ground scenario of the
expansion of of DSFG was strongly rejected by some of the opponent of
this agenda since the dilution of the meaning of Free has serious
negative implication and causes confusion in much deeper level.  

During discussion, Craig Sanders pointed out most of the "non-free" are
practically "semi-free" in FSF definition.  I think this is very
interesting point.

I do understand the negative feeling of carrying archive called
"non-free" in Debian, the Free Software Organization.  At the same time,
I understand the practical benefits of the continuation of archive
contents now called "non-free".

In light of above understandings, let me seek "removal of non-free" with
much more amicable context in which the practical function of our
archive as a whole is maintained.  This can be achieved by the creation
of "semi-free" with yet-to-be-determined(*) clear guideline.  Right now,
we only have implicit guideline for "non-free".

After all, "semi-free" softwares are better than proprietary softwares
and calling them "non-free" may not serve our goals better.

I do understand this is far from what the proponents of this agenda are
seeking but this may be a good middle ground for the both sides.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: