[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal



On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:05:12AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJ wrote:

(And that's, like, so boring I'm reduced to tears. *sniff*)

> 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.  

Cite? That's a mistaken impression if the FSF really think it's going to
remain the case.

The most official statement you'll find is:

] 1. DFSG-freeness
]
]       Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
]       and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
]       will likely become a requirement post-sarge.

  -- http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt

I don't believe any of the delegates involved in making the decision
(either the ftpmaster team or the release management team) disagree
with GFDL docs becoming a requirement ASAP. Any disagreement there is
is whether it's P already.

The only statement I've seen is from RMS saying that "well, the FSF and
Debian will have to tread their separate paths then" (paraphrased).

> 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.

Fair enough.

> > 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.

AIUI, there's dialogue going on now.

> And the FSF has no particular ties with the Debian project 
> at the moment -- so what ties are they going to cut exactly?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200309/msg00071.html

> It's a rhetorical question -- it does not ask for or need an answer.  

Well, not it wasn't, and yes it does. Asking questions is a rhetorical
technique, but just because they can be phrased in a way that makes it
easy to answer in a way you don't want to, doesn't mean you should take
the easy way out.

> 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.

Why not? Do you really think that having an undocumented compiler, C library,
debugger, etc isn't bad for our users? Or is it something else?

> Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.  But 
> when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter.  Isn't it?

Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
and hypocritical and inconsistent, and insisting they do what we want,
or face the consequences. Yay.

> >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.

We're meant to be providing an integrated system of free software:
that means documentation as well, IMO. Dropping documentation of our
core system is betraying that principle, and betraying the users that
rely on it and expect it.

> 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.)  

Out of curiousity, why do you think it's better to read non-free stuff
on the web than to install it on your computer? The only practical
differences are ones that hurt you; are you just irrational, or does
your double standard have some hidden benefits?

> 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 

Sure. But we're not really about making it easier for people to hurt
themselves.

> >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.  :-)

What, with a "yes"?

> > 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?

Making sure we don't start dropping stuff immediately, in order to give
other people the time to get free replacements for the docs, or get them
relicensed? Even when people tell me that I'm betraying Debian's highest
principles in following what, afaics, is exactly what Debian's highest
principles require?

> 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.  

Speaking of which, are you still interested in doing stuff about
Bug#211765? There's more information, that might be in confidence, that I
don't really want to have to follow through on myself.

> >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, 

No, that's not true. See, eg,

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199910/msg00095.html

This has been an outstanding issue for ages.

I should note that Bruce hasn't been a developer for most of that
period, too.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: