Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote: > However, since it is, would people please try to think through what > they're saying? [For example, if I agreed with Chris's line of thought > then I'd believe that Debian is brainwashing people by failing to offer > them all the standard Red Hat software.] Did you read my post? We would be brainwashing people (by my definition) if and only if: 1. We offered Red Hat and Debian packages. 2. We said "We support the use of Red Hat packages, even though we do not consider them part of the official distribution" in our social contract. 3. We said "You have a choice whether you use Red Hat or Debian packages." 4. We go out of our way to ensure people never face the choice they supposedly have. (Perhaps we bury some obscure config option in /etc/apt/sources.list, instead of asking in dinstall or apt's postinst "Would you like to use Debian or Red Hat packages?") We don't offer Red Hat packages (step 1), so I'm not seeing how I could be saying we're brainwashing people by not giving people the choice of using them (step 4). Feel free to code up a universal apt-alien interface to prove me wrong :p We do offer non-free packages. So the question is, do we offer that choice directly or do we hide it from people? RMS seems to prefer the latter option (lest any of our apparently stupid users accidentally choose "wrongly"). This question is directly tied-up in this vote. It's all about whether we facilitate the use of non-free software until this Free Software Utopia (complete with welfare for programmers) comes about. Chris -- = | Chris Lawrence | Get your Debian 2.1 CD-ROMs | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|http://www.lordsutch.com/| | | | | Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Visit the Amiga Web Directory | |University of Mississippi| http://www.cucug.org/amiga.html | =
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free distribution. Rather than try to delve into the rhetoric, let me simply point out that nothing prevents us from presenting both options on our web pages. Likewise, we can have people distributing cdroms which just have main as well as people distributing cdroms with contrib. While I'm addressing this subject, I'd like to point out that the main page has a link labeled "Download FTP" which doesn't address the more general issue of downloading from the net (for example: no list of aptable sources). I suspect that this lack is the real issue which people are trying to address. If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site, then perhaps it would be reasonable to require that apt include some partial information in this direction... but a stable package can never be as up-to-date as the web page (and we can presume that people who would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong. -- Raul
Re: [BALLOT] Logo3
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 05:42:56PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: > > i don't really care much one way or the other (i like the swirl with and > > without the bottle)...i'm only voting because i want this boring issue > > finished with. > > What a stupid reason to vote. Please don't vote if you don't care about > the options =( well, given that there is a "Further Discussion" option but not a "Shut The Fuck Up About It" option, the closest thing to my choice is to vote for the status quo and leave "Further Discussion" unnumbered. If my first choice "Against" fails, then i'd rather my second choice "For" wins. I don't want "Further Discussion" to win at all. that's how preferential voting works. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > > If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site, [..] > would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do > have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong. Argubly this is part of what we will be voting on. Jason
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Raul Miller wrote: > > If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site, > [..] > > would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do > > have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong. Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Argubly this is part of what we will be voting on. Please elaborate? I don't think you're trying to say that we're going to hold a vote to cancel a bad policy which doesn't exist. And, since there doesn't appear to be such a policy, it becomes just an implementation issue -- the web site maintainers can put up a list of aptable sources already. This should be done even if the split proposal fails. -- Raul
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote: > I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that > the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free > distribution. I believe the assumption is that this proposal will provide a precedent and a pretext for such a change. Eventually I suspect we're going to have YAV on that idea (reasoning: either (a) Wichert will do that and a number of people will request a vote by general resolution to overturn it, or (b) Wichert won't do that and a number of people will request a vote by general resolution to have the project do it). Of course, if option 3 wins this vote, chances are we won't have to bother with voting on a further shift in attitude towards non-free. Personally, I'd like to see YAV on amending the project constitution to require a 3:1 vote in favor of any substantive change to the social contract and any substantive change to the DFSG, and implementing some procedure for resolving whether a proposal actually contradicts the social contract or DFSG (and therefore would be subject to the 3:1 barrier). But I'm a picky constitutionalist. :-) Actually, what I'd really like to see is a potato release sometime this millenium instead of wasting time and energy proving our free software manhood. Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence | You have a computer. Do you have Linux? | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |http://www.linux-m68k.org/index.html | | | | | Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Do you want your bank to snoop? | | University of Mississippi | http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/ | =
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that > > the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free > > distribution. Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe the assumption is that this proposal will provide a > precedent and a pretext for such a change. Eh? So we're voting on an issue that's not even going to be on the ballot? Rather than voting against A because of B why not just put B up for a vote? Or are you saying that B's merits are so persuasive that we have to screw up independent issues to keep it from coming to the ballot? -- Raul
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote: > Eh? So we're voting on an issue that's not even going to be on the > ballot? No. But this issue (A) does represent a change in our policy toward non-free software, which moves us closer to position B (purging references to non-free and contrib). So, do we want to move toward B, or do we not want to move toward B? Philosophically consistent positions that are possible: Support A, Support B (RMS) Support A, Oppose B (presumably what happens if 1 wins) Oppose A, Oppose B (current position of project) A and B have a common underlying issue. We can argue that A is a less extreme position than B, but both positions are in the same direction from current practice. On a continuum of support-opposition to non-free software... not to scale of course. +---+---[--+---++---+] | | | AB | Caldera RHSDebian RMS (now) [..] represents the range of positions Debian could conceivably take. Note we can't move very far to the left (nor should we), since we don't distribute commercial software ourselves and therefore can't reasonably license it. About the only thing we could do is eliminate the non-free/contrib/main distinction, which I think would be a mistake. On the ballot at hand: I have no problem with ballot position 2; it appears to satisfy RMS's needs and does not compromise our social contract (nor does it change our position on that continuum above in any real sense). It is extra work for someone, however, so I will not rank it first. Chris -- = | Chris Lawrence | Get your Debian 2.1 CD-ROMs | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|http://www.lordsutch.com/| | | | | Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Visit the Amiga Web Directory | |University of Mississippi| http://www.cucug.org/amiga.html | =
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> choices. What's the point of people choosing free software if they
> didn't choose it but rather had it forced on them?
>
> People call you a socialist, this is exactly why. Who are you to tell me
Whoa! This is not at all correct. Not even close. For your
convenience, here is the definition of socialist:
socialist
adj 1: of or relating to or promoting or practicing socialism;
"socialist theory"; "socialist realism"; "a socialist
party" [syn: {socialistic}]
2: advocating or following the socialist principles;
"socialistic government" [syn: {socialistic}] [ant: {capitalistic}]
n : a political advocate of socialism
And, thus, of socialism:
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn:
{socialist economy}] [ant: {capitalism}]
Now, just where is Mr. Stallman advocating state ownership of
anything?! He's trying to advocate FREE software, not software
controlled by governments!
> what my morals should be? Give me the information and the tools, then
Please don't go down that path. Simple logic indicates that this
ethical relativist argument is not at all valid. Without going into a
formal proof, let me use two textbook examples which ought to prove
the point:
1. slavery
2. Nazi-ism
In both of these cases, we (rightly!) reserve the right to criticize
the people holding those particular ethics as incorrect. Thus
Stallman has every right to criticize your ethics as incorrect (and
you his). The rest of your message, in fact, goes on to critize his
ethics, yet you seek to critize him for similar criticisms of yours.
This seems at least a tad hypocritical, if not significantly so.
> Consider me corrupt if you like because I won't suffer when a suitable
> free program isn't available to replace the non-free one works for now
> until the free program works, I won't be hurt by it. However when you
> try to take away my right to choose that non-free package because you
> don't like me using it, I get annoyed. You don't have to go out of your
I don't see him trying to revoke any "right". He's telling you that
you are making the ethically wrong choice, not that the choice is not
yours to make. You are given the choice, and perhaps you choose in
error; but what use would there be for ethics if there were no choices
anyway?
> I check the files in /usr/doc---nope, no references.
> I check apt's configuration file---nope, nothing.
> I check the web pages---no references, search function returns nothing.
> I nose around the ftp site with my nice free ftp client, nothing.
>
> At this point I'm thinking where the hell is netscape? Why did Debian
Well this is a particularly bad example since all one has to do is go
to www.netscape.com and get a copy.
> What you then asked us to do is exactly what you said you wouldn't ask us
> to do. You want us to STOP supporting non-free software. You want us to
We never have supported non-free software, and as long as I'm a part
of the project, we won't. Note that even you agree that non-free
software is not a part of Debian. If this is the case, how do you
think we are supporting it?
Note that we do not support non-free software; the Contract explicitly
acknowledges that it is not a prt of Debian. We merely acknowledge
that it is possible to use non-free software on Debian ("support its use").
> You want us to hide non-free software from our users. Doing so would be
> a direct violation of our social contract which says we'd support our
> users' use of non-free software. Of course we could change the social
Nowhere does it say that we have to stick a sign in people's faces
indicating that non-free software is straight ahead.
> contract. We could, but I don't want to stick around to clean up the PR
> nightmare it would create the second someone like slashdot or LWN reports
Sheesh! Again a marketdroid argument. When are we going to stop
seeing things like this? Are you seriously advocating that we let
marketing take control rather than quality or ethical concerns?
> An essential part of freedom is choice. You want to take that away.
You haven't even come close to showing that.
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
+
The 47,260,887th prime number is 925,808,197.
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Jul 03, John Goerzen wrote:
> Note that we do not support non-free software; the Contract explicitly
> acknowledges that it is not a prt of Debian. We merely acknowledge
> that it is possible to use non-free software on Debian ("support its use").
Doublespeak. We provide support infrastructure for non-free software
that is the same as that we provide for free software. We may not
intellectually "support" its use, but we certainly provide physical
support for it. You can search for non-free packages on
www.debian.org. Apt will even install them if you put them in your
sources.list. Apparently we both support and don't support non-free
software. :-)
Support is such a loaded (and nonspecific) word that it's one that is
best avoided in many contexts, this one being a prime example.
> Sheesh! Again a marketdroid argument. When are we going to stop
> seeing things like this? Are you seriously advocating that we let
> marketing take control rather than quality or ethical concerns?
[I'll pass on being the "you" here. :-)]
I think it is reasonable for us to seek to project a positive image
about our project. That doesn't mean being slaves to marketing, but
we ought to at least be conscious that our actions as a group can
affect how others perceive the project. To ignore that fact of life
is a fallacy. (Look at Slackware, which is a PR nightmare because its
name was associated with shoddy, outdated tools a couple of years ago.
It may be a great distribution in 1999, but who's going to try it?)
Is it ethical to use non-free software? Probably not, but it's more
ethical than letting your dog crap on someone else's lawn. Maybe even
your own if the UPS guy has to walk across it. It's certainly more
ethical than writing it. My choice to use Netscape doesn't hurt
anyone else (certainly nobody in the free software community...).
Hell, it helps people who have stock in AOL (including many people who
own mutual funds who invest in AOL), AOL's employees, Netscape's
employees, the people who work on Mozilla, and the people who will use
Mozilla when it's stable. I can sleep at night using and maintaining
non-free software.
Surely the fact we are the only distribution ethical enough to divide
our software *in the first place* into free/non-free is enough; we
really don't need to create any extra work for our FTP maintainers,
our mirror maintainers, the website maintainers, the apt group,
our users...
Chris
--
=
| Chris Lawrence | Visit my home page! |
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ |
| | |
| Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz | Visit the Amiga Web Directory |
| with Linux/APUS 2.2.8 | http://www.cucug.org/amiga.html |
=
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it is reasonable for us to seek to project a positive image > about our project. That doesn't mean being slaves to marketing, but > we ought to at least be conscious that our actions as a group can > affect how others perceive the project. To ignore that fact of life > is a fallacy. (Look at Slackware, which is a PR nightmare because its > name was associated with shoddy, outdated tools a couple of years ago. > It may be a great distribution in 1999, but who's going to try it?) What you're basically telling us is that unless we let a contrived fear of a phantasmatic backlash from a imaginary "public", who is mislead and under-informed, influence our decisions, we are promoting a fallacy. Can you see why this live of argument has not brought you much success here? I think there are other ways to argue against this split, but by fear-mongering about a "public backlash" you are not likely to generate much support. We are not concerned with what Evan Leibovitch or Ransom Love, or whoever over at Ziff-Davis will say about us, they are not our users and have never contributed anything to our project. We have a contract with our users to be 100% Free Software and that is what our goal should be. We are not building a market, we are serving our users, and thru our work, ourselves. > Surely the fact we are the only distribution ethical enough to divide > our software *in the first place* into free/non-free is enough; we > really don't need to create any extra work for our FTP maintainers, > our mirror maintainers, the website maintainers, the apt group, > our users... The Social Contract says that Debian is 100% Free Software. As it stands presently, there is not clear separation in the eyes of users between the free and non-free parts of Debian. The maintenance of non-free archives and mirrors was a favor to users, and we could safely do that when the distribution and package selection mechanisms made the distinction clearly. The distinction used to be more pronounced in dselect, but with new packaging tools such as apt that distinction is no longer made in the eyes of users. Also, with more users with high-bandwidth connections, and alternative modes of retrieving Debian Software, the split is no longer as obvious, because there is no difference between grabbing a Debian package, and a non-Debian, non-free package. For this reason, the first item in the Social Contract is jeopardized. Not out of our negligence, or because somehow it's not something we can uphold in the harsh reality of late 20th century capitalism and the explosion of the Linux Industry. Rather, it's because the distribution mechanisms have changed. The friction which we counted on to make the distinction between Debian, and non-Debian packages is no longer there. If the solution to this issue requires more work, then we are bound by our Social Contract to undertake that work. Obviously the best solution is one which provides the proper distinction, and I think the more radical the distinction the better, with the least amount of increased workload. For this reason I think that solution "1", create nonfree.debian.org, is the best solution. Perhaps we should change it to "contrib.debian.org" in order to better indicate that it is outside of Debian and not part of it, but something which we provide some logistical support for. But I haven't thought that thru to the end yet, so opinions are appreciated. -- Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig I say woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and yet imprudent in 'dem outside-Sizzla
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On 3 Jul 1999, Craig Brozefsky wrote: > The Social Contract says that Debian is 100% Free Software. As it > stands presently, there is not clear separation in the eyes of users > between the free and non-free parts of Debian. The maintenance of > non-free archives and mirrors was a favor to users, and we could > safely do that when the distribution and package selection mechanisms > made the distinction clearly. But it is not the users we have comitted to make a distinction too. We have said that we will produce something called The Debian Distribution that is 100% free and we have done that. Anyone who cares to look can very easially tell what is part of that and what is not. > and alternative modes of retrieving Debian Software, the split is no > longer as obvious, because there is no difference between grabbing a > Debian package, and a non-Debian, non-free package. Creating a new host doesn't do anything to help create a difference, the tools are designed to not care where the packages come from. > For this reason, the first item in the Social Contract is > jeopardized. Not out of our negligence, or because somehow it's not Oh, I strongly disagree, 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. We have and continue to do all the points mentioned in the first item. Just because we don't shove it in the face of our users doesn't mean we are not doing them! We have not pledged to make this distinction absolutely clear without any shadow of a doubt to our users (in any event that is a very shaky line to walk). In fact statement 4 says we place the users interests first in our priorities, and clause 5 pledges us to use our support structure to provide non-free software to the users! Personally, I feel that moving non-free, killing the mirror network and using up the project's resources is harmfull to our users and only benifits our comittment to free-software which is counter to the Social Contract. That is why the first item in my summary is that this proposal mnay violate the Social Contract. > "contrib.debian.org" in order to better indicate that it is outside of > Debian and not part of it, but something which we provide some Just a nit, but AFIAK non-free is part of The Debian Project, but it is not part of The Debian Distribution. If it was not part of the project it would not be hosted on our servers, be using our BTS, our developers, etc. Jason
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not at all true! [RMS] was, IIRC, perfectly happy with the suggestion > that non-free repositories be listed in source.list as long as they > were commented out *by default* -- or even commented out only if > someone responded "yes" to a question like, "would you like to see > only truly free software". > I think that a question "Would you like to see non-free packages?" > would be an ineffective solution, since only truly committed idealists > like me would answer no. Well, I stand corrected. I phrased that question very deliberately, in a positive manner, and without actually mentioning non-free software. (Although there are phrasings that might work even better, such as, "do you really want to be bothered with lists of software that have ugly, complex legal entanglements and annoying restrictions?") I know that you hear a disproportionate amount of reactionary backlash against free software, just because you are who you are. I saw you being harrased by mental midgets at LWE in San Jose (and I made a point of coming over and thanking you for all you've done, to try to defuse the situation a little). Not everyone is like that -- not even most people. Not even very many. I can understand if it's hard for you to keep this in mind, though, some days. Believe me, the idea of truly free software appeals to a *lot* of people! The whole concept makes people's eyes light up. I talk to people -- users, not computer experts -- at Science Fiction conventions about what free software really means, and the reaction from random SF fans is *overwhelmingly* positive and enthusiastic. I really think that the average person would respond "yes" to my question. (At least, the average person who would install Debian in the first place.) > It would be like asking children, "Should we offer you some candy > before your meal?" This, I'm afraid, I don't agree with. What is so appealing about non-free software? If someone is really that attracted to non-free software, they'll probably use Windows or a Mac or something, and not a GNU system. It's not candy at all -- it tastes nasty, and most people wish they could spit it out! They hate it, many are stuck with it, and if they're coming to Debian, they're probably desperate to escape it. The problem is that we, Debian, *have* to ask that question, somehow, somewhere. We're attempting to make the absolutely best free system around; one that's so good that you can even use it to run non-free software if you need to. (Not unlike the FSF, which makes software so good that people will want to run it even on non-free systems.) Debian is somewhat the flip side of the FSF. The FSF provides great free software that can run on non-free OSes. We provide a great free OS that can run non-free software. We *have* to advertise that fact in order to draw people in and get them to see the advantages of free OSes. So we *can't* hide the fact that we support non-free software, because that would undermine our goal of promoting free OSes. > I would like to have a way that the GNU Project can recommend the > Official Debian system, without recommending the non-free packages. *I'd* like to have the FSF stop supporting non-free OSes, so that we can point to the GNU tools and say, "look, this is the best sofware of its class, but you need a free system like Debian to use it." I know that's not going to happen, however. Not yet. But it cuts both ways. The FSF and Debian are separate projects with different short-term goals, but basically the same long term goal. Neither project can be truly effective if it subordinates its short-term needs to the needs of the other project. It's unfortunate, but true. Neither project has advanced far enough towards their common goal to be able to ignore the needs of the non-free-software users whom we both need to attract. We're approaching the goal of promoting freedom from opposite sides, and, someday, we'll meet in the middle, and shake hands, and smile at a job well done, but that day hasn't come yet. We both need to continue our existing compromises for very good reasons. And, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. As long as the FSF actively supports Solaris, HP/UX, MS-Windows, and other proprietary OSes, they cannot claim the moral high ground over Debian. And what this all has to do with the proposal currently under discussion, I'm not sure, but at least it may provide food for thought. cheers -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or[EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 10:41:49PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > choices. What's the point of people choosing free software if they
> > didn't choose it but rather had it forced on them?
> >
> > People call you a socialist, this is exactly why. Who are you to tell me
>
> Whoa! This is not at all correct. Not even close. For your
> convenience, here is the definition of socialist:
[.. dictionary snipped, I can read ..]
> Now, just where is Mr. Stallman advocating state ownership of
> anything?! He's trying to advocate FREE software, not software
> controlled by governments!
He has advocated government control. Provided that their control causes
only software that is free to be produced.
> > what my morals should be? Give me the information and the tools, then
>
> Please don't go down that path. Simple logic indicates that this
> ethical relativist argument is not at all valid. Without going into a
> formal proof, let me use two textbook examples which ought to prove
> the point:
>
> 1. slavery
> 2. Nazi-ism
I think this is the point at which I invoke godwin's law, isn't it?
> In both of these cases, we (rightly!) reserve the right to criticize
> the people holding those particular ethics as incorrect. Thus
> Stallman has every right to criticize your ethics as incorrect (and
> you his). The rest of your message, in fact, goes on to critize his
> ethics, yet you seek to critize him for similar criticisms of yours.
> This seems at least a tad hypocritical, if not significantly so.
I have no problem with his ethics UNTIL he believes he has the right to
dictate what I may or may not choose.
> > Consider me corrupt if you like because I won't suffer when a suitable
> > free program isn't available to replace the non-free one works for now
> > until the free program works, I won't be hurt by it. However when you
> > try to take away my right to choose that non-free package because you
> > don't like me using it, I get annoyed. You don't have to go out of your
>
> I don't see him trying to revoke any "right". He's telling you that
> you are making the ethically wrong choice, not that the choice is not
> yours to make. You are given the choice, and perhaps you choose in
> error; but what use would there be for ethics if there were no choices
> anyway?
He IS trying to take that choice away! If you can't even find out that a
choice is available, it isn't. When I started college the first two
terms were completely pointless classes. I learned nothing and was bored
to tears. I found out midway through the second term that I could have
challenged each and every class I'd taken so far 5 months earlier and I
would have been able to take something meaningful. At that point it was
too late, but people insisted the choice WAS there. Except I didn't know
about it---so it wasn't there for me.
Richard has admitted he wants to do this with free software and with
Debian. He wants non-free software to be so hard to find that if the
only information available is Debian's own, people will never know that
free software is available and packaged for Debian.
I'm extremely opposed to hiding our problems.
> > I check the files in /usr/doc---nope, no references.
> > I check apt's configuration file---nope, nothing.
> > I check the web pages---no references, search function returns nothing.
> > I nose around the ftp site with my nice free ftp client, nothing.
> >
> > At this point I'm thinking where the hell is netscape? Why did Debian
>
> Well this is a particularly bad example since all one has to do is go
> to www.netscape.com and get a copy.
Not in a Debian package. If all someone has to do is go to id software
to get quake, why is it packaged? If someone has only to go to netscape
to get navigator, why is it packaged? UW and pine? pgpi and gpg?
wherever the hell it comes from for ssh?
Indeed, why package anything? It's all available someplace else. Your
dismissal of my argument is flawed.
> > What you then asked us to do is exactly what you said you wouldn't ask us
> > to do. You want us to STOP supporting non-free software. You want us to
>
> We never have supported non-free software, and as long as I'm a part
> of the project, we won't. Note that even you agree that non-free
> software is not a part of Debian. If this is the case, how do you
> think we are supporting it?
>
> Note that we do not support non-free software; the Contract explicitly
> acknowledges that it is not a prt of Debian. We merely acknowledge
> that it is possible to use non-free software on Debian ("support its use").
You're referring to this:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that
don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
"contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software.
The software in these directories is not part of the D
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 04:34:13PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Wichert's proposal would focus more emphasis to this distinction, by > according it more importance. It will show the users that Debian > means business about the distinction. If I cannot find it when I look specifically for it, it's not there. > If things happen as Richard would like, non-free will essentially become > available only to those who ask "is packaged?" on > irc or in an email to the lists. > > If things happen "as I would like", non-free software will be a thing > of the past. But if you're are talking about the proposal I made to > Debian a few months ago, that is an exaggeration. If the non-free > packages are available from a separate site, anyone who wants to > publicize that site could do so. I think Carter would do that. > Probably others would, too. Every single developer in fact would have no choice but to do so. Our security is based on pgp. And my attempts yesterday to use gpg in place of pgp for package signing were ... unsuccessful. I've not given up however. > However, this change would make it possible for others (me, perhaps > Wichert) to refer users to the Official Debian system, without > referring them at the same time to the non-free packages. So it is > true that users who get Debian via the GNU Project's references to > Debian would not find out about the non-free packages *through us*. Wichert's proposal doesn't say that. It just says we'll move the files to a different site. It totally neglects mention of the web pages, apt's configuration files and the comments contained within them, etc. Since Wichert is saying that he wants to vote on your proposal, I can only assume that the only way to find non-free software when it's done is to be psychic or know that we moved it (which we won't tell people) and where it went (which we also won't tell them)... If this is not the case, I wish Wichert would SAY SOMETHING and I will withdraw my objections. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - you know, Linux needs a platform game starring Tux kinda Super Marioish, but with Tux and things like little cyber bugs and borgs and that sort of thing ... And you have to jump past billgatus and hit the key to drop him into the lava and then you see some guy that looks like a RMS or someone say "Thank you for rescuing me Tux, but Linus Torvalds is in another castle!" pgpCZk2QVRFHV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 07:37:54PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > 4. We go out of our way to ensure people never face the choice they >supposedly have. (Perhaps we bury some obscure config option in >/etc/apt/sources.list, instead of asking in dinstall or apt's >postinst "Would you like to use Debian or Red Hat packages?") Actually, if the option to use non-free software was available in sources.list but commented out, and it was possible to find the location of Software which doesn't "Meet Our Free-Software Standards" the social contract says is there if one wished to look for it, I would not object to the split. It is that Richard wants there to be no indication that the non-free archive exists OTHER THAN the non-free archive itself that I have a problem with. If I were certain that what we are discussing here is just moving the archives to another box and making apt not use the non-free archive by default, I have no problem with it. As long as there is still mention someplace that is not hard to find if you're looking for it, I have no problem with it because a reasonable person would figure out that they needed to look. Up until then we don't have to wave it around at them. At that point they have made their decision and they DO want to find non-free software. If we make it so they can't, we ARE in fact hiding it. I'd rather spend the effort required to hide it instead telling people exactly why a given package is non-free and what other packages they might consider either additionally or in place of the non-free package. That way they can make an informed decision. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - -include ../../debian/el33t.h sendmail build...strange header name :) hahaha * netgod laffs BenC: can u tell i used to maintain sendmail? :P heh :) pgpMXemfPugaM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
/* * and this time I'll get Wichert's email address right */ On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 09:08:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that > the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free > distribution. Because wichert's proposal is incomplete. It doesn't say exactly what's going to be done about the web pages. What we have that DOES address it (the proposal by RMS) says that we WILL remove all references to non-free. Wichert has not yet spoken up about this and what we're discussing here is clearly related to the proposal RMS made. I will withdraw my objections in a heartbeat if I know that the implementation details of this proposal Wichert chose not to write about won't result in hiding non-free and making it difficult to get at. > Rather than try to delve into the rhetoric, let me simply point out that > nothing prevents us from presenting both options on our web pages. > Likewise, we can have people distributing cdroms which just have main > as well as people distributing cdroms with contrib. All indications are that while we COULD do that, RMS has asked us not to, and it looks like as a result, we won't. This is what I object to. > While I'm addressing this subject, I'd like to point out that the main > page has a link labeled "Download FTP" which doesn't address the more > general issue of downloading from the net (for example: no list of > aptable sources). I suspect that this lack is the real issue which > people are trying to address. Yah, it's time for the mirror list to include apt lines, and it should be more prominent. > If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site, > then perhaps it would be reasonable to require that apt include some > partial information in this direction... but a stable package can never > be as up-to-date as the web page (and we can presume that people who > would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do > have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong. We don't currently. I'm trying to prevent one being put into place. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - "Let's form the Linux Standard Linux Standardization Association Board. The purpose of this board will be to standardize Linux Standardization Organizations." pgp6232qg43I2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
This is an attempt to resolve some ambiguity about this free/nonfree archive split for debian. Richard, since you are the fsf representative here, please comment on the following interpretation of how the split should proceed: (1) We decide that the free archive needs to not contain references to non-free software, (2) We implement this primarily by creating alternate DNS names and splitting up the directory structure -- the urls for the free packages will be very different, but on some ftp servers it will be possible to change directory out of the free area and then into the non-free area. The exact details of this would vary from server to server. (3) Our web server (www.debian.org) would give details on how to configure a system for free software only as well as for the mix of free/non-free (which currently isn't available on cdrom -- only via the net). (4) The apt package would come pre-configured to only get the packages in main (both us and "non-us") but would also refer to the web site's detailed list of servers (which presents the non-free servers as well). >From the discussion that's taken place here, I imagine that people will be very interested in your thoughts about whether this would be acceptable in the long run, or whether you'll be asking for further changes [for example: before fsf would be comfortable distributing debian cdroms]. [Finally, note that this is my own idea of how the split could be implemented -- I've introduced it mostly for clarification purposes.] Thanks, -- Raul
Re: [BALLOT] Logo3
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Logo3 Ballot (Don't remove this marker) [1-3] Choice --- [ 1 ] FOR logo swap [ 3 ] AGAINST logo swap [ 2 ] FURTHER Discussion -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
