I've been snooping on this list and thread for quite some time, but this
one finally made me need to respond.
On 4 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
> free. Neither are all protocols. Sometimes, some communication
> protocols gain popularity with the masses that have no free
> implementations.
>
"Sometimes, some *operating system* standards gain popularity with the
masses that have no free implementation."
I for one don't think that's a sufficient reason to use that OS- do you?
> Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, call us using
> foo-grubble, and we can have a neat game". And we have to say, sorry,
> no can do, I use linux, and I am unable to do that.
>
"Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, *I'll send you the doc in Word98
format.*" And we have to say, sorry, no can do, I use linux, and I am unable
to do that."
I imagine that, and have it happen to me every day. So what? I knew that
was a problem when I switched to Linux, and I deal.
> At that point, the impression is that we are running a less
> capable system.
>
Well, in some ways we *are* running a less capable system. Practically
speaking, if we don't force people to write alternatives, we will never have
a more capable system. If stamping a product "non-free" will motivate
people to write a replacement, then this is a necessary step. Certainly,
saying it is completely free (which it obviously is not) will not do much
to motivate that development.
> When some one creates a client side of that protocol, using
> totally free software, and empowers our users with the ability to
> particiapte; that is a good thing. We have added capability to our
> system.
>
Again, I think I speak for many of us in saying that capability is NOT
the only important thing. If that were the case, many of us would be
using Office on our MS98 systems. Like it or not, by choosing Linux we
are choosing reduced functionality, which may or may not improve with
time.
> Of course, it would be nice if we had free server software
> too. That shall come with time. But turning away free software cause
> it talks to non free software on *ANOTHER MACHINE*, hurts the free
> software community.
>
"That shall come with time" is a very passive attitude. I'd venture to say
that very little that this movement has achieved has come because someone
said "oh, we'll just use the non-free version- someone else will fix it
later." Rather, someone said "Even though this works "right", it is *wrong*
in a deeper sense. I will fix that problem by doing it myself." That is
how things get done in Free Software. Being satisfied just because
something is "functional" is what hurts the community, and that is what
we are doing if packages like this go in main.
-Luis
P.S. I fully support the maintainers who reject tik, and hope that policy
will be clarified so that the various ICQ clients and word-format
converters can be moved out of main.
P.P.S. I'm surprised to see that no one here has suggested the creation of
another section (alongside contrib) that would hold packages dependent on
non-free protocols (as opposed to non-free libs.) Were I a developer, I'd
officially suggest it myself.
#######################################################################
God was my co-pilot,
but we crashed in the mountains
and I had to eat him.
-bumper sticker
#######################################################################
