On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>> >> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a
>> >> replacement for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate
>> >> alternative for http).
>>
>> > Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)
>>
>> > Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
>> > University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and
>> > the gopher developers
>>
>> > Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious
>> > argument that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative
>> > for HTTP (for at least some purposes). And, I wouldn't be
>> > devoting my time to maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't
>> > believe that was, at least sometimes, the case.
>>
>> You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained Gopher
>> pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I have no
>> use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users of
>> your packages, derive value from that protocol.
> Whose subjective determinations of the utility of a package in
> non-free should be controlling?
Why should one be controlling? We do not apply this criteria
for selection into main -- or for rejecting packages for grounds
other than licenses in main.
> Moreover, if the utility of a packaged work is a subjective thing,
> why should it be the most important factor determining the retention
> of a policy to distribute such things? Does it make more sense to
> ground our package distribution policies on less potentially
> controversial criteria?
The utility of software lies mostly for people who use the
software. People who do not use the software would rarely find it
useful. The social contract brought in utility of non-free software,
and a pledge to support the users use of such software on Debian, and
mentions the contrib and non-free sections in the same breath. I,
for one, find the social contract, as written, persuasive.
> Similarly, when we did we last use anyone's notion of utility as a
> criterion for inclusion in main?
Every single time. All it needs is for a developer to find it
useful enough to package, and it is in. I suggest we se the same
criteria for inclusion in non-free.
manoj
--
The best things in life are for a fee.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
