Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 20:09:55 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
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.
That wasn't the intention. I wanted to contaminate other software
distributed alongside it on floppy disks. Hard disks should be fine.
I'll reword that if necessary.
On top of that it's patent restricted, which limits use.
Only if you don't have a valid licence for that patent and task.
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.
Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a
choice?
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.
In that case, you cannot say that every apple must be missing some of
those blemishes, which I think is a fair analogue for your proposed
wording change about non-free.
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?
Because if it is the case, it is not a result of current practice. You
need to show that causal link, while I am trying to show a
counter-example which could be a non-free package under current
practice.
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?
My example is extreme, but not absurd. Anthony Towns's post suggests
it may not even be extreme.
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.
It is not a hypothetical practice, for it is documented and followed.
I think current practice is that shown in the Debian Policy Manual,
unless you can show better.
You've yet to provide a concrete example where current practice would
be changed.
It may be imperfect, but the "Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence v2" is an
example of something which would be acceptable to current practices,
but not to your revised practices.
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.
Is this all just a word game to you?
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.
I don't consider your theory to be current 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?
What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
non-free? As you know, I don't have that answer for myself. I say
there is no positive reason any more and support a yes vote to Andrew
Suffield's GR.
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.
I see no reason to conclude that software under a licence in the style
of my example would not offer some utility to some of our users, even
if it unacceptably limits their freedom IMO.
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.
As far as I can recall, I am not arguing that you are increasing the
separation. There are two arguments being furthered in this message.
First, that your changes to the definition of non-free change current
practice; second, that you are reducing the separation between
non-free and the debian distribution. I apologise if you dislike the
combination, but you did reply to a list of problems with your
amendment.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: