Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware
> afaik. sharefont was removed because it didn't have proper licenses, not
> because it had shareware stuff in it.
You may be right. I remember the discussions and the removal, but
I've not gone back to research everyone's view on this.
> > > > 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?
> If someone presents a package with a license that allows us to distribute it,
> but doesn't meet any of the DFSG, currently, we'll accept it.
>
> If the social contract is changed as you propose, we'll reject it.
>
> That's a substantive policy change: it'll change what software can
> actually sit on the ftp site.
>
> And if you really think it's never going to happen anyway, there's no
> point making that change to the social contract. There's no practical
> point certainly, but there's no philosophical point either: if even
> the worst non-free licenses we can imagine comply with some part of the
> DFSG, then we're not taking any particularly worthy stand by increasing
> our exclusivity.
Hmm... ok. Though I disagree on the philosophical issue -- I think
there's value in reducing ambiguity even if doing so does not result in
"taking a stand".
Anyways, I'll accept that "changing what software can actually sit on
the ftp site" is "a policy change". I'm not convinced that this change
is very substantial, but if you think it is I see basis for disputing
your point.
> > > > 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.
> And the cow jumped over the moon. That was a complete non sequitur,
> afaics. MJ Ray's example wasn't any more theoretical than someone asking
> what Debian's take on any license that hasn't already made it into the
> archive is.
Eh?
He's talking about a theoretical outcome involving a theoretical license
on theoretical software.
More generally, the answer to "what's Debian's take" is a theoretical
answer -- what we actually do when we get the package might be different
from what someone claims we'd do.
> > > 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.
> And that's just proving MJ Ray's point that you're refusing to discuss
> this properly.
What's "this" that I'm not discussing properly?
I thought I was talking about what we've been doing. You [and he]
are talking about what we might do. How is pointing out that one
is not the other "not discussing it properly"?
Or is there some other point involved here that I'm missing?
> > And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such
> > a thing?
>
> The same as for all non-free software we distribute: someone finds it
> useful, and we're able to do so at little to no cost to ourselves.
That seems highly unlikely, but like I said above: if you consider
this a substantial issue I don't have a basis to object.
> > 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.
>
> I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client
> enhances anyone's freedom in any way.
I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding
proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...).
Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't come from any
of our guidelines.
> Heck, take that package: it can't be freely redistributed by anyone but
> Debian (failing #1, #5, #6, #7, #8), it doesn't come with source code
> (#2), you can't make derived works either legally or practically (#3),
> leaving two guidelines met, #4 because it's irrelevant, and #9 unless
> you take "in .. their official distribution" to be analogous to the
> requirement of "all other programs .. must be free software".
Ok. I don't see any violation of #6, #7 or #9, but that (along with my
not having any basis for disputing your opinion that this is a substantial
change) is close enough to "existing practice includes distributing
software which violates all the terms of the DFSG" that I'll remove the
"some" clause from my next draft.
--
Raul
Reply to: