> 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. > > > > I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's > > proposal, not mine. > > > <snip> > > > > I definitely need to update my proposal (Linux Standard Base is what LSB > > stands for), but I'm less certain that pulling out the non-free section > > stuff is the right thing to do. > > > > Andrew Cater -- could you explain a bit more about why you thought > > getting rid of that content was a good idea? I mean, I understand > > what you're saying in a glib sense, but not when I sit back and > > think about it.
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? More important: why? Maybe you've already answered...? > I am for a 100% free software Debian, but not at all costs: alienating > users and the wider free software community can't help anyone - being > known as "Debian the licence fascists who won't include Pine/the NVidia > drivers" is bad enough, even if the reasons are justifiable :( Hmm... ok. > We can hope that, like the State, the need for non-free will one day > wither away :) but we may need to work pragmatically. > Some people _need_ non-free packages, others only prefer them: until the > documentation/GFDL issue gets sorted out one way or the other, much of our > documentation is axiomatically non-free :( That matches my current thinking. > As aj has also emphasised, neither proposal sorts out contrib. > in any way :( I don't think Aj has commented on my proposal at all. Maybe he's waiting for me to stop making changes to it. I think I do allow for contrib, though a fair bit of that is through implication. > I think it is still important to emphasise that Debian is inclusionary, > not exclusionary and is concerned with real users and the real world. > We_do_ make it possible for non-DFSG-free software to run readily on the > basis of the Debian system, we don't normally pillory people for using > /maintaining non-free software. 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 ... :) ] This brings to mind some really odd imagery: "if you don't take that non-free off your machine right now, I'm going to send you to bed without any supper". Or... I don't think us "allowing people" to do things has ever been the issue. The issue is more what we enable people to do. > 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. > 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. 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. 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. > [Unexpected testimonial: some users at work wanted Icon - to work on > a project started some years ago - and were absolutely amazed when > I told them it was on my Debian system out of the box. No commercial > distribution would consider Icon worthwhile today, I'd imagine - but > Debian gets the job done straightaway :) ] Where we're good, we're often excellent. And software freedoms are a core reason why that's the case. I agree. Interestingly enough, that even applies to our support for non-free software. -- Raul
