Branden said: >There's always[1] going to be some new non-free thing for which there >isn't yet a free replacement. xpdf-japanese et al. didn't exist in 1997 So you admit that the original motivation for non-free is *still valid*!
>when we adopted the Social Contract, as far as I know. So I don't see >non-free trailing off in use, but instead growing, and the number of >source packages in unstable over the years bears this out (see my >discussion with Jim Penny elsewhere in this list). No, it doesn't, as pretty much everyone else who looked at the numbers agrees. What has happened is that the number of non-free source packages has *stabilized* since slink; this is because old non-free packages are replaced with new free alternatives *and* new non-free packages are introduced which perform functions previously unavailable. These two processes have generally been balancing each other out, although there's no guarantee they will continue to. >[1] or, at least, for as far in the future as *my* crystal ball sees Yep... as far in the future as *I* can see, the process I described in the previous paragraph will keep happening. It will only stop when *everyone in the world* appreciates the value of DFSG-free software. Why? Because people writing software in *new areas* are the least likely to understand the free software movement, even if they support it once they understand it. These are people we want to co-opt, not drive away. --- There's a real complaint: confused users and developers think that 'non-free' is part of the Debian distribution. How to solve this without slaying non-free? Here are some ideas, in increasing degree of drasticness. * Have the Debian project introduce a new server called something like "third-party.debian.org" to host non-free. Emphasize that these packages are *not* part of the distribution by making users select this server separately in their apt sources list. * Have non-free operate independently of the release structure. To the user, there is only one non-free distribution, the "third-party non-free packages" distribution, which they must add to whichever Debian distribution they use. If different package versions are needed for stable and unstable due to, for instance, library linking issues, they'll need to have different names (like the gcc2.95, gcc3.0, gcc3.2 business). This might be too radical, but would clearly differentiate between Debian and "non-free". * Abandon non-free entirely, but have SPI sponsor a apt-gettable server (third-party.debian.org) for third-party developers to put .deb packages on. Emphasize that this is merely a hosting service and that Debian does not track or maintain any of these, and merely tries to keep the infrastructure from breaking. Debian maintainers of non-free packages they really care about can then put them there. In contrast to the proposed GR as is, this would at least eliminate the feeling (which I see a lot) that the only .debs in existence are part of the Debian distribution, and that if it's not distributed and maintained by Debian you have to use plain old tar.gz. The problem is the potentially infinite number of .debs people will want to distribute once Debian takes over the world. :-) So in essence this would eliminate non-free *and* give more support to non-free. I'd be (very) happy with any or all of these (in particular, the third option would be a positive improvement over the status quo); I wonder what Debian developers who support non-free think of these ideas? --- I think some of the trouble arises from the fact that many Debian developers disagree about the correct interpretation of the DFSG when applied to non-executables. "non-free" has actually acted as a safety valve for these problems; the debatable non-executables can go in non-free without seriously hampering the ability of those who consider them "free enough" to use them. Perhaps it was inevitable that this question would come to a head sometime. --Nathanael Nerode
