Hi,
I think we have descended to a level of nit picking that is at
odds with reaching a common ground. I am sorry, I am not interested
in debate for the sake of debate. If you think we can indeed reach a
commn ground, we should continue. Or else we should let the people on
the list decide for themselves which of our positions has a more
convincing argument.
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony> So, eg, software that depends on otherwise free non-us
Anthony> software isn't really free?
Actually, you bring up something else I find irritating. Just
because the main archive lies in a country which has (IMHO)
unreasonable laws does not make the software non-fee. We may have
problems with distribution unless the main ftp sitre is shifted to
another part of the world, but the software should not be termed
non-free.
Anthony> So the rules for being `really free' aren't just the DFSG
Anthony> but a bunch of extra little things like, `has to be usable
Anthony> in the US', and `can't just be wrappers for non-free
Anthony> packages'?
That is wrong too. Shall we just agree that we need to look
into solving the non-US issue, and not get distracted here?
Anthony> Bah. Software in contrib passes the DFSG, therefore it's
Anthony> free. /Really/ free.
Well. If it requires me to put non-fee stuff on my hard drive,
then it does not belong in main.
Anthony> The only thing that it isn't, is useful in a completely free
Anthony> environment. You can't even use it without putting non-free
Anthony> software right there on your harddrive.
Umm. TIK does not meet the latter criterion. Thus my argument
that it does not beloing to contrib
>> In whose opinion? I find it useful, and I don't need the darn
>> non-free server. I may wa t to study how it is put together.
Anthony> If that's all the package is good for in a free environment,
Anthony> then it ought to be packaged completely in /usr/doc, like
Anthony> the diploma package.
I gave an example use for the package that had escaped people
wanting it out of Debian. I do not rpesume to say that it is
the only use some one may have for the software.
>> Or something.
Anthony> Or something. Great.
Yes? Do we presume to know every use soe one may have for
software? Are we the arbiters of what is useful, and what is not? I
feel very uncomfotable with the implied arrogance of that assertion.
>> We can't determine what uses people put the stuff we write
>> to.
Anthony> Says who? We certainly seem to have been able to determine
Anthony> that netscape3 and netscape4 installer packages are only
Anthony> going to be used to install the non-free netscape browser,
Anthony> and not to `study how it is put together.'
Remove the requirement for having some non-free software in
/tmp, and remove any hint of installation of non-free software on my
hard drive, and I shall help you champion the inclusion in main for
those programs.
Anthony> Try pointing `it' at a remote server (since there aren't any
Anthony> free servers for you to install locally),
I do have a free server installed locally.
Anthony> then unplugging your network connection, turning off your
Anthony> modem or whatever.
OK.
Anthony> See if it still works.
Does for me. Satisfied?
Anthony> How is saying "We're going to put this in contrib, not in
Anthony> Debian proper" a force that cannot be resisted?
>> Actually, we all know that blackmail can be resisted.
Anthony> You're awfully fond of the loaded terms there, Manoj. If one
Anthony> didn't know better, one might assume you were going for a
Anthony> knee-jerk emotive reponse because you didn't have a rational
Anthony> argument for your case.
Sorry. I was defending my use of the word ceorcion, and used
blackmail interchangeably for that (it is an extension, but not much
of one, and does tend to make my point vis a vis coercion more
strongly).
Anthony> Well, let's see. We're not divulging discrediting
Anthony> information, so it can't be that.
Well, if I wrote a piece of code, and was advertizing it as
free software, and Debian threw it out (of Debian, I mean), that is
discrediting information. I would feel hurt. and worse, I think, my
friends would think I tried to pull a fast one.
Anthony> So we must be `exerting pressure on someone throught
Anthony> threats'.
See above.
>> The force need not be physical. It can be moral. Some one who
>> GPL's their code obviously believes in the free software commnuity
>> (and they are utting their labour where their mouth is). To them,
>> having the stigma of having their software being called non free can
>> be painful.
Anthony> Then for God's sake would you *stop* calling all their code non-free
Anthony> just because it's not in main? You're clearly already alienating all
Anthony> our contrib authors.
Well, we clearly deem it not free enough to be part of
Debian. (Sorry, contrib authors).
Anthony> `contrib' and `non-free' are two *completely* separate
Anthony> areas. Just because software's not suitable for the main
Anthony> Debian distribution does not mean in any way that it's not
Anthony> free.
I disagree. It is, in some way, not free enough to be part of
Debian.
Anthony> Yes, we're urging them to make the server free too. But
Anthony> we're not forcing them, and they can *certainly* resist our
Anthony> demands.
>> The person who wrote the client may have nothing to do with
>> the server. If the two are distinct sets of people, you are punishing
>> the author of the client for the author of the server not making the
>> server free. Does not seem fair.
Anthony> a) Punishing? Surely you jest. We're not talking about a
Anthony> beating or anything here.
The worst punishments are rarely corporal.
Anthony> We're talking about appropriately classifying software as
Anthony> depending on non-free software for its functionality.
When, IMO, it does not. And there is the rub.
Anthony> b) _Big deal_. We already do this for local dependencies.
Yes. 'Cause it asks me to put non-free software on *my* hard
drive. I don't care what other people do with their machines. If I do
not put non-fee stuff on my machine, I'm happy. I think that out
current behaviour reflects that.
Anthony> When we put pine and qmail in non-free, did that coerce the
Anthony> authors of those products to change their license?
>> We tried. They called our bluff. And they are really in non
>> free since we do not have a licence to distribute the code, which is
>> a titally different thing.
Anthony> They called our bluff? Dammit. We must really be kicking
Anthony> ourselves that we didn't just put it in main in the first
Anthony> place.
No. Just cause one can't win is not enough of a reason to give
up the good fight.
Anthony> Where *is* this `irresistable force'?
>> No one said that the coercion was effectual.
Anthony> An ineffectual irresistable force.
Anthony> Would you care to look up that dictionary again, Manoj?
I think I disagree with the dictionary definition where the
force required in coercion _has_ to be irresistible. Sorry for not
clarifying this.
Anthony> Here, I'll help. The first definition which I didn't bother
Anthony> responding to
Anthony> in my last post:
Anthony> coerce
Anthony> v : to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical,
Anthony> moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a
Anthony> job in the city" [syn: {pressure}, {force}]
Anthony> Note the `to cause to do'. We caused pine and qmail to be freed, even
Anthony> though they're not actually free, right?
Now look at the noun: Coercion. This, espescially the legal
definition, comes closer to my intentions when I used the word.
Don't you think we are drifting rather far afield?
>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
2. (Law) The application to another of either physical or
moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be
resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far
as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral,
then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party
doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act
convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived
by the fact of submission under force. ``Coactus volui''
(I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind
which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls
the result of such coercion. --Wharton.
>From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
coercion
n 1: the act of compelling by force of authority
2: using force to cause something: "though pressed into rugby
under compulsion I began to enjoy the game"; "they didn`t
have to use coercion" [syn: {compulsion}]
>> That makes it
>> worse, actually. We are delibrately making our system less capable
>> and for what?
Anthony> We're not making the `system' less capable.
Anthony> For people who want `capable' they have to download more
Anthony> from contrib than they do now. I'm sure their hearts will
Anthony> just break.
Indeed, it is the rpinciple of the thing. Putting Tik in main
would cause your heart to break, no?
manoj
--
Never give an inch!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
