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

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Yeah, but i think it is not a health problem, not a dissease, at worst a
mild disconfort. I guess it is not even noticeable.

Discomfort can be a health problem. I don't think I called it a disease.

Err, my anecdotes are first hand experience. So, i think it is rather
more than vague sentiments.

Please publish the comparative analysis of the magic non-free effect, if you have one.

[...] This is also a point you are missing. The
motivation of non-free packagers.

You're right. I'll think about that aspect of it. Do you think perversity would motivate some, though?

Surely the bible text is in the public domain by now?
But modifiable ? That would be heresy, i think, and it is not copyright
law that is going on here.

Self-censorship doesn't make something non-free. What happens if there are laws preventing it is a fun OT question that I'm not going to pursue right now.

and what about the whole lot of GFDL documentation)
No-one claims it is free software, so I don't think there's much question there.
The question is, once we decide it is non-free, and we have to remove it from main, where will it go, and if we decide to keep it in main despite
its non-freeness, then what about other non-free documentation we are
going to kick from the non-free archive ? Especially the ocaml-docs i
care about ?

This is the "who would keep non-free.org?" question. I have nothing new to write on that yet.

Yes, these sort of NDAs are always a problem. The problems are at least as bad as the symptoms. Why accomodate the symptoms?
Because i want to run kick-ass 3D on my debian box ? Because i want to
use the cheap ADSL pci modem i have in my box ?

Removing non-free from the archive doesn't make these any more or less possible than they were before. Maybe it makes it a tiny bit harder, but Debian is centred around a free operating system, not on making all half-related user tasks easy. I don't have enough money to order as much beer online with my Debian box as I'd like... can we make that easier? ;-)

What are the alternative for those ? Run windows ?

I've said what I think on that in previous emails. Summary: encourage free alternatives.

Yeah, sure, but it is only a minority now, i tell you i see a trend for more and more non-free drivers. What will be our position to those. And even now, it is only a minority because the majority of non-free drivers
are not packaged.

I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and unambiguous in the message: "non-free is not part of the Debian operating system".

If you support removal when there is a free alternative, it sounds like a weaker form of the Suffield drop GR would get your support. How
That is what i have been telling since the begining. We have to see
non-free on a case by case basis, not on a shot first, ask later as the
non-free removal people suggest.

Again, you make unjustified allegations about people who disagree with you. Please stop.

The cut must come eventually, else we will be held hostage by a small minority. If we try to cut too soon, the vote will tell.

But for that, we don't really need a GR or changing anything, it can
even be done with aj's proposal.

I agree.

to word it, though? I can't think of a way that avoids the "when alternatives exist" condition problem I mentioned in other emails, though.
There is no need of a new wording. Just point out the case where
alternative exists, and by all mean, let's remove them.

You and I have no way to remove them.

So, there is still some extra work for each package in non-free and not just "freebie". The OP exaggerated.
Well, wrong, there is extra work for _new_ packages in non-free.

Surely each upload is checked a bit?

Yeah, sure, please go ahead, and reverse engineer the nvidia hardware,

I work on as much as I can, but you are better skilled to do that sooner than I can.

Yeah. But this third party discouragement is one of the strenght of
debian, and its seal of quality too. If you want to go beyond that, then
you start having loads of problems.

This third-party discouragement limits debian unnecessarily, in development, adoption and collaboration. We will not scale infinitely and we must address that.

Does the proposal do that any better than the Suffield drop GR not passing?
I think not. It is just a keep the status quo thingy. But it would at
least guarantee a certain time delay before we have to discuss about
this again.

How does it do that? I looked, but didn't spot anything.

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: