On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > The simple answer is: the reason that we should not distribute them is > > the same as the reason that they are not DFSG-free. You can, I'm sure, > > search voluminous archives for illuminating discussions upon all those > > points with relation to the DFSG. > > No, that's not a reason to not distribute them. that's a reason to put them > in > non-free. that, strangely enough, is precisely why non-free exists.
Indeed. I am saying that the very same ethical arguments that we use for excluding software from main apply to excluding software from our FTP site. This is not a novel question. It has been answered already ad naseum. > > The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can be > > used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me. > > last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the > get-rid-of-nonfree zealots of this. someone else accused me of being > delusional. > > well, i'm glad that we've got that cleared up now. Me too. You see, I am aware of difference between the different licenses. I simply do not care. It is not because I believe the DFSG is perfect. Rather, it's becuase I believe restricting our users' freedoms is wrong -- and, moreover, ultimately harmful. We will have a better project if we do not engage in that sort of activity, even if it is only a few users whose freedoms are trampeled, and even if those freedoms are only lightly trampeled. > > Confusion. Many people incorrectly assume that software in non-free is > > what a load of crap. i thought you lot stopped trotting this one out a few > years ago....obviously your arguments haven't improved. > > there will always be people who are confused by anything no matter how it is > explained, no matter the facts of the situation. this is because there are a > lot of stupid people in the world. catering to them is a perilous path. I never said this should be the sole reason for removing non-free, and I agree that it does not stand by itself. However, it does help tilt the scale. > > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian > > this one is actually close to reasonable. however, everyone knows that > non-free is the bastard son and does not expect the exact same level of > consistent high quality as for main. Not everyone, for sure. There are a lot of people that have been deeply concerned about the lower quality that must inevitably result if Debian no longer carries non-free on its servers. I think that the quality is more likely to rise than fall :-) > > Ethics. We are here because we value Free Software and believe that it > > is valuable to us and the world. Non-free software is everything that > > we are not. Non-free means lack of freedom to use software like you > > want. Non-free means lack of the ability to alter it like you want. It > > means lack of ability to give altered copies to people you want to. It > > may even mean lack of the ability to fix grave bugs in the software. > > here, again, is proof of what i said. you do not distinguish at all between > proprietary software and semi-free software. your position is entirely The distinction exists, but it is not a useful one here. > ideological, not based on reality. you do not care about what is actually IN > non-free, all you care about is the fact that it is labeled 'non-free' and is > thus polluting debian's 'ideological purity'. I care nothing of the label. I care about WHY it's in non-free, and that is the reason I want it gone.
