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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong



On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 
> > non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> > section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> > non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> > debian/main.
> 
> But you have also referred to non-free as part of Debian.

As part of the debian infrastructure and also at least partially, of the
debian project, but not of the debian distribution.

> > Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
> > be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
> > by a non-free.org DNS magic? 
> 
> No.  That would be an improvement, but it would not be enough.  There
> is also the BTS, and the reporting of it on the web pages which tie it
> closely to the distribution, etc.

Ok.

> > This would cause the less burden to our ressources (ressources as in
> > volunteer time donation, what other ressource do we have), while
> > achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so important to you of not
> > having non-free programs visibly related to the debian project. If
> > not, could you please come up with a sane rationale on why not ?
> 
> My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> wouldn't be complaining so much.

Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
non-free will be real though, and a real pain.

If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
achieve that.

> > Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
> > non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
> > same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
> > non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
> > strengthening free alternatives ?
> 
> These are not alternatives.  Both are important.  Distributing
> non-free does nothing to help either.

Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.

> > And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
> > proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
> > may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
> > archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
> > external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
> > (also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.
> 
> Puhleez.
> 
> > Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
> > do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
> > individual hardware components of your computer ? 
> 
> Those hardware components, and the BIOS, are not part of Debian.  My
> goal was never to make Debian run without any non-free software in the
> room.  It's to make Debian 100% Free Software.

Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.

> > And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
> > you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
> > be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
> > non-free you have no use for ? 
> 
> If you want to provide easy access, go to it.

And you want to pull it from me.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: