Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
> > software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
> > way or another!
>
> I don't think it's meaningful to claim that anything under
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ isn't part of Debian in _some_ way or other.
>
All IMHO:
The primary distinction between Debian and everything else Linux
rests on two documents: the Social Contract and the DFSG. The DFSG
are not normative to the rest of the world - they are Guidelines, after
all - but they do provide a line in the sand.
Also, however tempting it may seem to think otherwise, the Social
Contract and DFSG are voluntary constraints. As Debian developers/users
we can't "force" the world to use Debian / change licences / develop
only free software - but we can seek to persuade by example. Others can
and do disagree - Red Hat has previously distributed "non-DFSG-software"
freely but Red Hat is not Debian. Similarly, there is no compunction to
distribute 100% of the world's software within Debian - just because
someone/some Debian developer can package some software as a .deb and
wishes to do so doesn't mean that they _must_ : commercial/proprietary
packages may be supplied as .rpms, for example, but the rights holders
are not constrained that they _must_ package .debs [There is
also the potential risk that proprietary distributors may inadvertently
package .debs which break our packaging guidelines: that's up to them]
Debian remains committed to 100% Free Software. There is a tension
between those people who only want to use 100% Free Software [and
include documentation in this category, for example] and those who are
working towards 100% freedom but accept some degree of pragmatic
compromise to get there - hence, as I understand it, the original
rationale for contrib and non-free areas within the FTP server.
Debian "main" satisfies the DFSG completely. The Social Contract
implies that this is, in fact, the Debian distribution properly so
called and, potentially, the only distribution which can properly be
called Debian. As the Debian Project, we can't categorically warrant
"main" as absolutely 100% free in every conceivable circumstance: we
don't give a statement to that effect and we do request that users check for
themselves but we do the next best thing and assert that it is 100%
free within the DFSG and that we will uphold this to the best of our
ability.
<here comes the [current] line - all below this line is not part of
Debian >
Debian "contrib" is not, in and of itself, part of the Debian software
distribution. It contains software programs which in themselves are
DFSG-free but which depend on non-DFSG elements e.g. that require Java
to build.
The "non-free" part of the archive contains other programs which may or
may not satisfy any or all of the elements of the DFSG but which may be
distributed by Debian. Some of these may not, however, be freely distributed
to the world but only to academics and the US government, for example.
> Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not recommended,
> or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms where you have to
> engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk about stuff.
>
Unless you give them CDs / apt source lists with "main" and
"non-US/main" only, you normally have to explain something of the above
- even if only to explain why we don't distribute binaries of qmail / pine
or why we currently have issues with certain aspects of invariant sections of
documentation.
> > If you look at both of your examples, you will realize that this *is*
> > an assumption you are making. Why don't you assume for a moment (as I
> > have since for the last half decade) that Debian distributing software
> > from the FTP site does not imply inclusion in the Debian system or
> > being part of Debian.
>
As a project, we can (potentially should/must) draw the
DFSG-free/non-DFSG line and better emphasise it.
[Pragmatically]
There is nothing wrong, however, in admitting that there is some software
which is not DFSG-free which benefits some users of the Debian distribution
and packaging it in Debian-compatible formats - but it is not Debian
DFSG-free.
There is obviously nothing wrong in seeking to produce free
alternatives/get licences changed - this will give us
more 100% free software - but we can't do this for everything in the
world immediately
Distribution of non-DFSG-free software is a convenience to our
users, not a fundamentally necessary service. The fact that we have
distributed non-DFSG software in the past via FTP need not constrain us
to continue this service in the same way indefinitely.
The Debian project may choose to continue to provide infrastructure as a
"nice to have" and as an interim service pending 100% free software
alternatives. [Such infrastructure being provided as an adjunct to our
Debian distribution of fully DFSG-free software and not as part of it.]
Section 5 with the cuts suggested below doesn't actually detract from
its meaning :) Extra blank lines inserted solely as spacers.
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
>
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
<Cut here>
We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
this software. The software in these directories is not part of
the Debian Distribution, although it has been configured for use
with Debian. Thus,
<end cut>
> [A]lthough non-free software isn't a part of the Debian Distribution,
> we have provided infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> lists) for non-free software packages.
>
> There's a difference between being "explicitly" a Free Software project,
> which I think Debian is without any question, and "exclusively" a Free
> Software project, which is the question at issue here.
>
> I don't see how it'd be possible to have a compromise between the people
> who want Debian to be exclusively a Free Software project, and those
> who want the Debian project to distribute non-free software. I can't
> really see how anyone who refused to work on anything but exclusively
> free software projects would be willing to work on Debian.
>
> That's a different choice to refusing to work on anything but free
> software, though.
<small snip>
>
> And that's the question. Is it our distribution that's meant to be 100%
> free, or is it our project? Our distribution is already exclusively free
> software, but the project as a whole isn't.
>
Clearly and succinctly put :)
Reply to: