Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > [a license which makes the software useless to our users]
> >
> > So what?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
> to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
> licence for a non-free package individually. I have combined them to
> make a pathological case and edited the wording. Possibly I have
> over-edited it.
All general purpose computers I know of use magnetic media, the
license appears to not allow distribution onto such media.
On top of that it's patent restricted, which limits use.
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
This reminds me of a rotten apple argument -- apples with minor blemishes
can be useful to make pie. But, just because you can make an apple pie
with apples which have any sort of blemish doesn't mean that an apple
which combines all those blemishes is worth anything.
> > You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something
> > we currently distribute. I asked you what.
>
> Are you sure? I claimed "This tries to change our current practice in
> some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG" in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html
> but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present.
> Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing.
As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of
our guidelines. How is that not the same thing?
> > I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd.
>
> I am not proposing an absurdity, as I have presented you with an
> example of it.
Are you saying your example was not absurd?
> On the other hand, you cannot present a logical argument that your
> proposal does not change current practice, because that claim is absurd.
That works for definitions of current practice which involve only
hypothetical practices.
You've yet to provide a concrete example where current practice would
be changed.
> >>>> I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice
> >>>> >> to
> >>>> only current instances of existing practice.
> >>> Because instances which have never happened do not exist.
> >> You may not generalise like that.
> > Why? "Existing" refers to that which exists.
>
> Poor wording. I should have written "current practice", as in the
> earlier claim. Highlighting that error is pedantry IMO.
You can call that pedantry -- but as I see it you're not talking
about current practice.
> > In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from
> > motivations
> > and goals, not from pure randomness.
>
> It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect
> of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents
> something possible under current practice is not a change of current
> practice. That does not depend on "pure randomness".
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're
different.
> There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and
> seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in
> Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at
> least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You
> can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be
> disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a
> counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly.
I don't consider theory to be practice.
Sorry.
> > From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights
> > of someone to use Debian to distribute "for pay" software. And now
> > you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing
> > practice.
>
> The example only requires payment in some circumstances, but still
> breaks that DFSG. We already have software in non-free which is only
> free for some limited range of tasks. mpg123 is probably the best
> known example, but there might be other better ones. There are a range
> of discrimination clauses available. I tried to make my example
> discriminate against commerce and people who are not debian
> developers. If you prefer, I can rewrite it so that people only have
> to pay if they are either a member of a certain ethnic group, or are
> commercial.
And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such
a thing?
> >> Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not
> >> meet any DFSG.
> > If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users
> > must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin.
>
> I think we already have this, but it might not always be as obvious as
> my example. If I distributed mpg123 as part of a radio station music
> player system, I would have to obtain a new copyright licence. If I
> just used it to make such a system for my own commercial use, I would
> have to do that.
But that's not why we're distributing that software -- that's a blemish.
We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms
for at least some of our users.
> >>>>>>> And what is this "substantial change"?
> >>>>>> Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
> >>>>> The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian >>>
> >>>>> GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about
> >>>>> auxillary distributions.
> >>> You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our >
> >>> archive
> >>> exist because of an oversight in the social contract?
> >> Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar
> >> claim
> >> about "auxiliary distributions" may be an oversight.
> > If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I
> > don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.
>
> It really is not a difficult concept: if you are only trying to
> clarify this, if the social contract statement about non-free not
> being part of the distribution is incomplete, it should be completed
> and not removed. To remove it means that you reduce that separation,
> IMO.
So why are you arguing that I'm increasing that separation? The
hypothetical examples you've been providing, to prove I'm wrong are
saying the opposite of what you seem to be saying in this paragraph.
--
Raul
Reply to: