Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> said:
> On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
> wrote:
>>> 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.
> That would probably allow the transition plan to block the GR
> action.
The GR would have authorized this course of action, so I do
not see where you are coming from.
>>> 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.
> Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
Why can't it?
>> Could you point out which package was deleted from Debian that had
>> active DD's?
> elfutils, I think. It was deleted at the DD's request via bug 221761
And thus irrelevant. If the maintainer requested the removal,
the maintainer, the primnary advocate of a packages, said it sdhould
be removed (these cases generally have _very_ good reasons); and the
maintianer was in effect saying that they did not want to be active
maintainers.
It is also not relevant to the question at hand; if non-free
package maintainers wanted to remove their packages, they do not need
their hannds forced with a GR, there are mechanisms in place for them
to do so already.
>>> 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.
> I think we should consider reasonably forseeable problems instead of
> waving the "hypothetical" wand. From jumping into the middle of
> Craig's list, foiltex, ldmud, libapache-mod-fastcgi and libparmetis
> look likely to obstruct some testing. We'd need to look at the
> specifics of these and many others to be sure.
Look likely to obscure testing? And you have not looked?
Sounds slanderous to me.
>>>>> 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 another
>> hypothetical?
> Well, you seem a possible example. Could you answer the second
> question, in your opinion, please?
Slander again. You accuse me of being irrational, attached to
my non0free packages even if a pathway to a free alternativce exists,
and now you want me to defend myself against this accusation that you
have no basis for.
I'll answer that question when you answer the question about
when you shall stop beating your mother.
I suppose I can start a tome-anonymous group to wean people
from their desire to play these games, as a step to reduce the need
for angband and tome, but I, being an avid palyer, have no itch to
scratch in starting such a group.
>>> 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?
> Need is subjective, but some people seem to confuse desire with
> need.
In that case you do not need computers. People have been known
to survive all their lives, for decades even, wioth absolutely no
contact with any computers. I mean, unless all them history books are
lying there were (gasp) no computers back in the old days.
> I am not sure how you would determine when there is no need, but
> that's a condition you introduced here. So, do you have a way to
Our social contract introduced the term. And it also uses the
term "require".
> determine when there is no need that avoids the problem of people
I do not undertand the construct "no need that avoids the
problem". What exactly is it that you are trying to say here?
> opposed to removing non-free on principle, or were you trying to
> introduce an unsatisfiable condition?
Oh, my requirements for this issue are not unsatisfiable.
manoj
--
IBM had a PL/I, Its syntax worse than JOSS; And everywhere this
language went, It was a total loss.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.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
Reply to: