Re: "keep non-free" proposal
AJ wrote:
>I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
>counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to say "You're letting it in, so it's OK." This has happened already. It
also removes incentives for other people to create free documentation. (In
many cases, they don't even *know* which of the documentation they're using
is non-free.) These results, I consider *counter*productive.
> Counterproductive
>would be, say, declaring that the FSF distributes stuff that's non-free,
>causing them to cut ties with the Debian project and refuse to engage
>in any dialogue about the GFDL.
No, that's at worst unproductive -- because the FSF "management" has *already*
refused to engage in any dialogue about the GFDL, for several years running.
With anyone, including FSF members, not just Debian. Fact. With one short
break which occured when Debian threatened them with the removal of GFDL'ed
docs from main. And the FSF has no particular ties with the Debian project
at the moment -- so what ties are they going to cut exactly?
>So, I'm sorry, but I don't think the answer to your question corresponds
>with what we should do about GFDL docs and RFCs in main at all.
>
>Is there some reason you're not willing to answer my question as it stands?
It's a rhetorical question -- it does not ask for or need an answer. Or, in
other words, I agree with the answer you would give -- *if* that's the right
question, which I don't think it is.
See, I don't think the anwer to YOUR question corresponds with what you should
do about GFDL docs and RFCs in main at all.
Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff. But
when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
>One of the issues with moral stands is what you do when they're in
>conflict with other good things. Are you willing to admit that you're
>in favour of hurting our users by dropping necessary documentation?
Duh -- yes. I think it helps Debian's users more than it hurts them to have
the non-free stuff separable and separated, but of course it does have
negative consequences.
Personally, I have removed all the non-free documentation packages from my
system. And I used some of them before. (I admit, I still read a few of
them on the web when I have to.) Trying to remove all the non-free
documentation was *much* harder because of all the packages which include it
with the programs, and I eventually gave up (not least because the packages
in some cases would no longer apt-get remove cleanly, but also because it
required looking through a vast number of files very carefully).
>Or are you only willing to stand up for your opinion when it will be
>seen in an entirely adoring light?
I think I just answered that question. :-)
>Again, there is very little question about whether we want to remove
>non-free docs from main. We do.
This consensus took a long time to generate. (As you know.)
> The question is whether we do it
>immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can
>to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the
>FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it.
Well, what are YOU doing to limit the negative consequences?
My efforts to create replacement documentation have been somewhat delayed by
hosting decisions and related problems, which I admit is not a great excuse,
but they are things I find difficult to deal with. Someone volunteered to
help me with that end of things, but appears to have flaked out.
>Well,
>the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
>decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
>by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not telling the truth.
It appears that, amazingly, nobody noticed the problem for a long time, which
just means that you've been kind of dumb for the entirety of your
existence. ;-) I guess the word "hypocrite" technically applies to both --
but if you recognize your hypocrisy, you can stop being hypocritical, whereas
if you don't, it's at the very least a lot harder -- the temptation to
misinterpret things so as to justify your previous actions is too great.
Reply to: