You said this: > > > Very few Debian resources are spent on > > > non-DFSG-free stuff.
My point is that multiplying a "very few resources" times two is still
"very small resources. I assumed you meant developer time and effort were
part of these resources.
> > There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
> > backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
> > see this as big stumbling block.
> Personally, I think all of those are representative of failings within
> the Debian project.
Perhaps you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I can see why
one might say that. Either way, they exist and someone is willing to
maintain them currently - the barrier wasn't too high.
> Sure it is: the existance of good, doesn't require the complete
> extermination of all evil. Likewise, the existance of 100% pure DFSG-free
> software doesn't require the complete absence of non-free software.
But for Debian to distribute 100% DFSG approved software it cannot
distribute one non-free package. The point of this proposal would seem to
be to go to 100% DFSG software on Debian servers, so there is no confusion
about what is and what is not part of the project. Agreed?
> Some people see taking money for free software as hypocrisy too. Should
> we therefore only allow paupers to develop Debian?
If I'm taking a bunch of money from someone and developing DFSG software,
it's hard to see how my actions hurt the project. On the other hand, if
I'm developing (or packaging) something that is not DFSG compliant and
injecting it into Debian, perhaps I _am_ hurting the end user depending on
my licensing terms. I think could construct a hypothetical situation where
this is the case. I'm not saying that this currently exists though.
> That's happened before, it'll probably happen again. We're different
> projects; and we're both strong enough to stand on our own.
Agreed.
> Adding an "FSF Approved!" sticker to a Debian CD is a marketing benefit,
> not a practical one. The distribution itself -- it's effectiveness, it's
> efficiency, whatever -- isn't affected at all.
In the past there have been monetary benefits from our association with the
FSF in addition to the "marketing" benefits. Given that money hasn't been
an issue, that benefit seems fairly small at this point.
> Personally, I think all those sort of benefits are outweighed by the
> people who need to run proprietary software, and finding Debian lets them
> do that very easily, are then able to see first hand the benefits of a
> pure free software system. We've not been doing a very good job at
> helping introduce those folks to free software, but I can only imagine it
> getting worse if we decide to drop non-free completely.
Spell it out for me, I'm not following why it would get worse. Sorry if
I'm being dense.
Thanks,
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
