On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:47:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get > > > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free. > > >
Our existing support for non-free may not continue to exist in its current form (contrib and non-free FTP archives), for example, for ever. Stating that we have no problem with people running non-free software on the underlying basis of a Debian system is more important. Being inclusionary is more important than confining ourselves to the structures we have inherited and committing to their indefinite support. > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > Andrew S. wants to remove clause 5 and to state that Debian will not > > release another stable release with the non-free FTP archive, as I > > understand it. He also has suggestions for editing the DFSG. OK. > > > > I'm looking for a via media here. > > "via media" means middle way, right? Middle between Andrew S and what? On the one potential extreme, you have "drop non-free now, drop all infrastructure to do with non-free": on the other "keep GFDL in main, loosen DFSG restrictions" - in the middle, you have thousands of different opinions :) I'd like to keep the concept of non-free partly as an interim necessity, partly as a bargaining chip - but not for Debian to be known for non-free. That's one of the reasons I suggested potentially renaming non-free to non-DFSG-free (maybe in one of the other threads) -- to _emphasise_ the DFSG and freeness of Debian and that Debian main is Debian properly so called. > More important: why? Maybe you've already answered...? > > I like that sentiment, too. > > > <RATIONALE FOR SUGGESTED CUT> > > By deleting the stuff in the middle and keeping the remainder: > > > > There is an emphasis that we (Debian Project) will allow people to > > continue to use non-free software if they wish. [We won't deliberately > > manoeuevre the Debian packaging system to exclude all non-DFSG free / > > handicap the computer / delete their non-free packages with a sneaky > > shell script ... :) ] > No: you can permit/allow them to use non-free by, for example, providing compatibility libraries and not deliberately excluding non-free which may be distinct from explicitly enabling/helping them to run non-free. > > > There is an emphasis that Debian will be interoperable with the LSB. > > Big for commercial purposes: potentially less important for a sole user > > but, on the other hand, we're playing as part of a wider community. > > That's something I added. And exactly because of it's significance for > commercial (non-free) software. I've got at least one guy claiming that > that's really not a non-free issue at all. > Not necessarily vital. > > There is an emphasis that we carry on working to reduce the numbers of > > non-DFSG packages and the amount of non-DFSG-free software. > The advocacy bit - beginning "[W]e will ..." > There is? I'm not sure what you're referring to, here. > > > The drug dependency metaphors and the statement that non-free software > > isn't needed by most people don't add much and may detract from the > > overall effect of clarity. They also add significant length. > > I think you dubbed in the bit about drugs. There's many kinds of > dependencies. Potentially: but it sounded like a drug dependency programme weaning people off non-free :) Potentially laudable, but not here in this context in this document - it could go better elsewhere, perhaps. > > Also, if I take out the text you indicated to clip I don't mention the > non-free distribution at all -- which pretty much means it has no reason > to exist. That's what I'm looking for a justification on. > See above. HTH, Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
