On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:48:44PM +0000, ireulx wrote: > When did the Free Software Community come to mean Debian users? > When did 'needs' come to mean 'wants'? > > Debian Social Contract (1997) > ----------------------------- > We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on > Debian. > We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. > > Debian Social Contract (2016) > ----------------------------- > We will support people who use Debian. > We will be guided by the wants of our users. > When a creator that has been part of the free software community for decades > makes a polite request we will tell them that they "obviously haven't > understood > how distributions work and what stable releases are" (i.e. that they need to > conform to our way of doing things). > We will then change their code against their wishes and call them "ignorant", > "stubborn", "crazy" and a "dick." > We will focus on the distribution _we_ want to use, not on the broader free > software community. > P.S. Our petty wants are more important than upstream's needs. >
I don't agree with the picture you are trying to paint here.
First, I see that many commenters here are trying to consider the
upstream creator's interests. Several people here have come up with
solutions that will help the author reduce the number of old bug
reports he receives.
Second, judging by his comments here and in his code, the author was
from the very beginning fully aware that the time-activated warnings
were going to cause problems in the context of Debian stable. He either
intended or did not care about that. So who is breaking the social
contract here?
Anyway, I changed my mind a bit on what I think should be done with
this package in Debian right now:
I still think the warnings can and should be patched out in stable /
Jessie and I still think we should at the same time try to reduce the
flow of bug reports to the upstream author, who has indeed been part of
the free software movement for decades, for example by adding a Debian
bug tracker URL near his URL/email address. I don't think we should be
removing his email address.
However, with regard unstable/future versions of Debian, I think that
the upstream author has shown that he is willing to go to great lengths
to prevent the perpetual use of individual releases of his software.
Given the problems caused by his actions so far, that it all seems to
have been quite premeditated and that his recent comments show that he
does not have any regrets, I fear he might take even more damaging
action in the future if his demands are not met. In short, I do not
trust him anymore. Removing his software from unstable ensures that he
cannot do any more damage.
That said, I still think that making it difficult for users to
perpetualy use an individual software release goes against both the
letter ("permission to use") and spirit of free software. Making the
coercion part of the software itself and referring to it as a 'feature'
that is 'behaving as intended' does not change that. I hope the author
can reflect on that.
Finally, could the maintainer (Tormod) please comment? Is an update in
the works? Or would you welcome a non-maintainer upload (NMU)?
Best regards,
Peter Nowee
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
