Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 +0000 Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
this is not worth reading too.
I have read your anecdotes and I am aware of your stated opinions. I'd
just like to see something more conclusive about the magic non-free
archive effect. As you know, there have been cases where debian-legal
contributors have convinced licensors to fix things without using
[...] I can assure you that if we drop non-free, the freeness of the
main stuff will disminish.
Is this a statement of intent to attempt to sneak non-free things into
main? The threshold will not move in the forseeable.
How would being able to run nvidia graphic card in 3D mode be in any
comparable to ordering beer ?
Both cost too much for the project. However, the Debian operating
system already does not support the nvidia binary drivers and none of
the current proposals would change that. The project currently does,
in a limited way, which is being discussed.
And despite all your words, you have no solution to this, no chance to
get a free alternative out, so where does this let you ?
Same place as I was before. Just now, I don't need a solution to this
problem I don't have and I am busy working on solving problems I do
have. It sounds that you need this problem solved. Why are you arguing
"the solution is too hard to do" instead of JFDI?
And then, please go and look at our user mailing list, and the number
questions asked by user using third party graphic driver, either for
nvidia and ati hardware, and you will see what it cost us to drop
Long term, it will cost you more if you don't. These drivers will put
you back into dependency on the software barons, begging them for
updates and work. Kick the habit now. I wish I could tell you how, but
you know far more than I do about this.
I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
in the message: "non-free is not part of the Debian operating
But forgetting what we told in section 5, about supporting our users
which need non-free.
Actually, you remind me that this is something which I think we should
address, but is it now too late?
Again, you make unjustified allegations about people who disagree
Which unjustified allegations ?
"shot first, ask later as the non-free removal people suggest". I
don't think you have justified comparing supporters of Suffield's drop
GR to trigger-happy gun nuts. Demonising those with opposing views is
You and I have no way to remove them.
Sure, we have. We can fill a bug report against them asking for their
removal, where you make the case that it should be removed because
so-and-so is a viable alternative. You have to convince the maintainer
though, and thus handle a reasonable technical discussion with him,
which i believe most of the remove non-free proponent are not yet able
or willing to do.
Equally, we can propose a GR which asks for their removal en masse,
where we make the case that the effect is positive, on balance. Why is
one indirect possible action OK, yet you say the other is not?
Attempts at either action does not prevent the other, really.
Nope, only new uploads, the rest is automated, or the whole system
Surely each upload is checked a bit?
Then it is only "a freebie" if we allow no new uploads to non-free?
Towns's amendment does not mention such an action.
This third-party discouragement limits debian unnecessarily, in
development, adoption and collaboration. We will not scale
we must address that.
Yeah, sure, but encouraging non-free third parties is not the way to
Possibly not the best, but there is some benefit if it also
facilitates free third parties too. I don't wish to encourage new
people to go non-free route, but I see little harm in encouraging
current non-free to become third parties.
I like your "debian-approved label" idea. I think it ties in with the
trademark and Skolelinux discussions on -project and should be
discussed further there.
I think not. It is just a keep the status quo thingy. But it would
least guarantee a certain time delay before we have to discuss about
How does it do that? I looked, but didn't spot anything.
Because i hope you would be ashamed of yourself if you were going to
propose this same thing again a week or so after the vote is held,
hope also you would then fail to raise enough seconds.
I wouldn't, but there's no guarantee of that from passing Towns's
amendment. I don't think it would be any different if Suffield's drop
GR doesn't pass. Towns's amendment has just delayed the vote and seems
to oblige another vote to resolve the absurdity if Suffield+Towns is
passed. If you wish this issue to be settled for a while soon, I think
you were foolish to second the 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/ email@example.com
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/