Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> > infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate
> > non-free.org archive?
>
> Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's
> different.
Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least
argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined
benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this
will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is
part of debian.
> > What does it change in the long run?
>
> It stops having the "debian" name attached to non-free packages, it
> stops debian being a distributor of non-free packages, and it stops
> the use of debian resources to support the non-free packages.
Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining
of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems
evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still
part of the debian project. A distinct part from debian/main but a part
nonetheless.
> > And, what do you think of people who need to run 3D graphics, or need to
> > run java? They will go to apt-get.org, which is as debian as it can be,
> > isn't it, carrying the apt-gte name, and download the third party
> > package. Or go to non-free and use it, or go to non-free.org and get it.
> > In how far does this improve the freeness of debian for these users ?
>
> Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the
> freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making
> Debian more or less free.
No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like
non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality.
> What it changes is Debian doing this other distracting thing, which is
> not part of the Debian distribution: maintaining the non-free archive
> on our resources, and distributing it in a way which causes users to
> become mistaken and think it's part of Debian.
Over debian developers doing this more distracting thing: maintaining a
more costly alternative non-free archive with our own ressource and
distributing, in a way which is separate from debian only in name, and
even then, all those people who think apt-get.org is part of debian will
not see a difference. And those who do, i guess they are smart enough to
see debian/non-free as separate from debian/main, don't you think.
> > > nothing else. You have already described the current state as one in
> > > which non-free is part of Debian--indicating that the compromise
> > > position we thought we had has more or less entirely broken down.
> > > Anthony Towns as well has now said that the compromise is meaningless.
> >
> > Yeah, and ? Do you really think this may change once non-free is moved
> > to non-free.org ? Please be serious.
>
> Yes. People will still be confused perhaps, but I believe that an
> awful lot fewer will do.
Yeah, please bring forward a study showing your fact. your belief is of
not help here.
> > And, you conveniently forget about section 5 of our social contract,
> > which you agreed to when you became a debian maintainer, and now that
> > you don't need netscape anymore or whatever other non-free package, you
> > want to get ride of it.
>
> I haven't proposed getting rid of any packages. Removing non-free
> from the Debian servers doesn't mysteriously cause the bits to vanish.
Yes, you have proposed making my life, as packager of a non-free
package, which incidentally i need to do my debian work, more difficult,
this diminishing my time i could otherwise dedicate to debian.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: