***** MS => Manoj Srivastava MS> If only it were as simple as that. This issue has been brought up MS> on the lists, and, IIRC, it was quite controversial.
It is controversial indeed, does this also mean we can't try and have it decided? DGMS> My vote is for free packages not being allowed to reference DGMS> non-free packages in any way, neither Recommends or Depends nor DGMS> Suggests. MS> I am not comfortable with that, sorry. I think we should focus on building a free OS. If other projects or companies want to use it to build something mixed (non-free software on top of our free OS), that's fine. But our stated aim is precisely to build a completely free OS; so, while some of us engage themselves providing our users non-free package --- which is also a good thing, if people are willing to do it --- Debian (i.e., main) should stand by itself, without references to external non-free software. At least, this is our goal, I believe. DGMS> BTW, I'd go even further: I'd suggest every free package DGMS> maintainer not to mention non-free software at all in our DGMS> descriptions, scripts, and so on. I'm a bit disappointed DGMS> noting a lot of our packages out there that talk about one DGMS> commercial product or another in the Debian diffs. MS> I am even less comfortable with this. Admittedly my statements in the paragraph you quoted here above are a provocation. Think of them as a good suggestion, not as a something that should be policy. MS> Extremist positions do not do well to drive consensus. I thik MS> this issue may well be too controversial for us to deal with in MS> this forum. I welcome lesser extremist position to have some discussion, then we could go ahead and propose something that accommodates as many of us as possible while preserving the spirit of our project. I think this is a good forum for this discussion --- last time we tried it on debian-devel we could not reach a consensus due to some flames, maybe here we could try and be cooler. :-) MS> We have to strike a balance between the good to the community MS> done by freeing software, and catering to the needs of our users MS> by providing a system that is the most capable out there, and MS> recognozing that some of our users do use software that does not MS> meet our guidelines. I think allowing suggestions in fee software MS> is condusive to those goal, and totally in line with those MS> sentiments. It's a good think that some of us are willing to help our users providing non-free packages, but this should not affect the main Debian goal in any way, which I feel is not the present situation. Beside, why don't we leave this catering to some external body? I'm sure there are companies out there interested in this topic very capable of doing it well. MS> Since we do recognize that some users have to sue software that MS> may be non free, and we have committed to support our users who MS> develop and run non-free software on Debian, we can do no less. Support is a key word indeed. We should just support, not encourage, nor have our project (i.e., Debian, or what we sometimes call `main') directly interwoven with something that is not a part of it, and could never become it for our very choice. MS> amazed to be arguing on the opposite side for once Surprising. ;-) Let me say I'm not a fanatic (as far as I can see), and I don't plan to bomb non-free software supporters, nor users. :-) I hope we can argue in a safe way and finally reach some conclusion, be it what I desire or not. What I ask for is that such a conclusion be clearly stated some where, so all of us could become aware of that, including newcomers: I feel is is really important to understand how far Debian is willing to go in its involvement with non-free software. As ever, it's not very exciting to realize that what you actually do doesn't match what you expected to, so better know it before engaging yourself. Regards, -- Davide G. M. Salvetti - IW5DZC [JN53fr] - <http://www.linux.it/%7Esalve/> <http://www.gnu.org/> * <http://www.debian.org/> * <http://www.linux.org>
