Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. Yes, well, that's technically true. Unfortunately modifying a work on a computer involves copying it. not necessarily. editors and patching tools can edit a file without copying it (if you try to define loading into memory as copying, then running software or viewing documentation is illegal) a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. OK, that's an acceptable claim. However, we require explicit permission to modify in patch form, because the patches may (though they may not) be considered a derivative of the original. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? We should require explicit permission to modify in patch form, as noted above. We don't have that for a lot of documentation. Not a higher standard. 1. your scenario made no mention of explicit permission, now it suddenly appears because you need to prove you weren't wrong on this point. 2. explicit permission to write and distribute errata sheets or patches is NOT required, copyright (in the original) does not extend to someone else's work (the patch). or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So you're saying that it makes no practical difference to programs whether modified versions can be freely redistributed. no, i did not say it makes no difference to the program. i said it makes no practical difference to the average user. in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. the ability to view and modify the source code, or just use the program, for their own needs is enough for most people. it's definitely non-free, but it's useful. and, before you try putting words in my mouth, i specifically did not say that that means that non-free software is as good as free software, or that there is no point to free software. what it means is that non-free software can still be useful to people, even if the license sucks. I think you're totally wrong, and I'd daresay nearly everyone in the free software how can a statement of observable and verifiable fact (i.e. that non-free software can be useful) be totally wrong? movement agrees with me. I guess you're *consistent*. But what does your strange view on this have to do with Debian, which states in the Debian Free Software Guidelines that the entire project as a whole disagrees with you? the DFSG makes no comment on fact. it is a document about the ethics of software licensing, it defines what we consider to be free software. since i was a part of writing the DFSG and you were not, i think i have a little better understanding of what it is about than you. So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false. you won't argue with it because you haven't actually thought about it. you're just reacting to the evil 'non-free' term. No. Perhaps you haven't thought about the implications of what you said. wrong. i'm just more interested in practical reality than ideology. ideology that is not grounded in reality is dangerous and must be opposed wherever it rears its ugly head. You have now said that whether software allows free redistribution of modified copies (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. Of yes, makes no *practical* difference to the user, because most users have absolutely no intention of ever redistributing modified versions. when you can explain how limiting the right to do something that they have no intention of ever doing can make a *PRACTICAL* difference to someone, then you may have a point. that limitation may make a theoretical or
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. Unless they have friends, then they might care [because software that isn't redistributable is harder for their friends to get]. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. Unless they have friends, then they might care [because software that isn't redistributable is harder for their friends to get]. friend, get a copy of the software from there, and here is my set of patches. no, it's not as good as free software. it's still useful, which is exactly my point on that particular topic. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Craig Sanders wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the end-user, however, Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to modify works even privately; it's legally unclear. copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. Yes, well, that's technically true. Unfortunately modifying a work on a computer involves copying it. otherwise, writing in the margins of books or using sticky notes would be illegal. See above. and the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all. no one really needs to modify doc-linux-nonfree-text, or povray-doc. This is just too silly a claim to argue with. Even Stallman, notorious supporter of non-free documentation, would disagree. no, it's not at all a silly claim. sure, it would be a lot nicer if all documentation were free along with all software - but it really makes no pratical difference (as opposed to a contrived difference where the argument has to have all the pre-conditions set exactly right to prove that it makes a difference). most users of software, whether it be free or non-free, have no need whatsoever to modify the documentation. Or the software. a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. OK, that's an acceptable claim. However, we require explicit permission to modify in patch form, because the patches may (though they may not) be considered a derivative of the original. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? We should require explicit permission to modify in patch form, as noted above. We don't have that for a lot of documentation. Not a higher standard. or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So you're saying that it makes no practical difference to programs whether modified versions can be freely redistributed. I think you're totally wrong, and I'd daresay nearly everyone in the free software movement agrees with me. I guess you're *consistent*. But what does your strange view on this have to do with Debian, which states in the Debian Free Software Guidelines that the entire project as a whole disagrees with you? So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false. you won't argue with it because you haven't actually thought about it. you're just reacting to the evil 'non-free' term. No. Perhaps you haven't thought about the implications of what you said. You have now said that whether software allows free redistribution of modified copies (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. Of course, you offered no evidence for this sweeping and false statement. It makes a practical difference to me. I am a real person. Therefore, you are wrong. Q.E.D. BTW, please notice that I'm against removing non-free. I don't think bogus unsupported claims that some of the freedoms Debian requires make no practical difference to any real person help my case! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Craig Sanders wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. Yes, well, that's technically true. Unfortunately modifying a work on a computer involves copying it. not necessarily. editors and patching tools can edit a file without copying it (if you try to define loading into memory as copying, then running software or viewing documentation is illegal) It may be, without a license. :-/ It obviously shouldn't be and I hope it's not, but recent laws and court cases have made this questionable. I think in current US law it *is* considered copying, and there's a specific legal exception for normal transitory copying to memory during normal use. :-P a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. OK, that's an acceptable claim. However, we require explicit permission to modify in patch form, because the patches may (though they may not) be considered a derivative of the original. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? We should require explicit permission to modify in patch form, as noted above. We don't have that for a lot of documentation. Not a higher standard. 1. your scenario made no mention of explicit permission, now it suddenly appears because you need to prove you weren't wrong on this point. I didn't think I needed to mention explicit permission because I thought it was understood that lack of explicit permission is generally lack of permission. I'm sorry I was wrong about that understanding. :-/ 2. explicit permission to write and distribute errata sheets or patches is NOT required, copyright (in the original) does not extend to someone else's work (the patch). Nice theory, but Debian doesn't assume that it's correct. :-P There is in fact a good case to be made that context diffs *do* contain elements of the original. If you intend that errata sheets all be 'free-form' or context-free diff form rather than in the usual patch form, that *would* be definitely non-derivative; but that is even more inconvenient. or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So you're saying that it makes no practical difference to programs whether modified versions can be freely redistributed. no, i did not say it makes no difference to the program. i said it makes no practical difference to the average user. OK, I'll accept that statement. What you said before was any real person, which I disagree strongly with. the average user I agree totally with. I guess we were both using a little too much hyperbole. Sorry about mine. in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. the ability to view and modify the source code, or just use the program, for their own needs is enough for most people. it's definitely non-free, but it's useful. and, before you try putting words in my mouth, i specifically did not say that that means that non-free software is as good as free software, or that there is no point to free software. what it means is that non-free software can still be useful to people, even if the license sucks. Great. I agree with this. It's not what I read in your previous messages. I read extreme claims about it making no practical difference to any real person whether software was free or not, and I responded to that. I think you're totally wrong, and I'd daresay nearly everyone in the free software how can a statement of observable and verifiable fact (i.e. that non-free software can be useful) be totally wrong? It's not what I was objecting to. You said that the presence or absence of the right to free redistribution of modified versions makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. *That's* what I was saying was totally wrong. I agree that non-free software can be useful. movement agrees with me. I guess you're *consistent*.
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. Yes, well, that's technically true. Unfortunately modifying a work on a computer involves copying it. not necessarily. editors and patching tools can edit a file without copying it (if you try to define loading into memory as copying, then running software or viewing documentation is illegal) a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. OK, that's an acceptable claim. However, we require explicit permission to modify in patch form, because the patches may (though they may not) be considered a derivative of the original. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? We should require explicit permission to modify in patch form, as noted above. We don't have that for a lot of documentation. Not a higher standard. 1. your scenario made no mention of explicit permission, now it suddenly appears because you need to prove you weren't wrong on this point. 2. explicit permission to write and distribute errata sheets or patches is NOT required, copyright (in the original) does not extend to someone else's work (the patch). or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So you're saying that it makes no practical difference to programs whether modified versions can be freely redistributed. no, i did not say it makes no difference to the program. i said it makes no practical difference to the average user. in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. the ability to view and modify the source code, or just use the program, for their own needs is enough for most people. it's definitely non-free, but it's useful. and, before you try putting words in my mouth, i specifically did not say that that means that non-free software is as good as free software, or that there is no point to free software. what it means is that non-free software can still be useful to people, even if the license sucks. I think you're totally wrong, and I'd daresay nearly everyone in the free software how can a statement of observable and verifiable fact (i.e. that non-free software can be useful) be totally wrong? movement agrees with me. I guess you're *consistent*. But what does your strange view on this have to do with Debian, which states in the Debian Free Software Guidelines that the entire project as a whole disagrees with you? the DFSG makes no comment on fact. it is a document about the ethics of software licensing, it defines what we consider to be free software. since i was a part of writing the DFSG and you were not, i think i have a little better understanding of what it is about than you. So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false. you won't argue with it because you haven't actually thought about it. you're just reacting to the evil 'non-free' term. No. Perhaps you haven't thought about the implications of what you said. wrong. i'm just more interested in practical reality than ideology. ideology that is not grounded in reality is dangerous and must be opposed wherever it rears its ugly head. You have now said that whether software allows free redistribution of modified copies (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. Of yes, makes no *practical* difference to the user, because most users have absolutely no intention of ever redistributing modified versions. when you can explain how limiting the right to do something that they have no intention of ever doing can make a *PRACTICAL* difference to someone, then you may have a point. that limitation may make a theoretical or
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. Unless they have friends, then they might care [because software that isn't redistributable is harder for their friends to get]. -- Raul
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. Unless they have friends, then they might care [because software that isn't redistributable is harder for their friends to get]. friend, get a copy of the software from there, and here is my set of patches. no, it's not as good as free software. it's still useful, which is exactly my point on that particular topic. craig
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Craig Sanders wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the end-user, however, Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to modify works even privately; it's legally unclear. copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. Yes, well, that's technically true. Unfortunately modifying a work on a computer involves copying it. otherwise, writing in the margins of books or using sticky notes would be illegal. See above. and the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all. no one really needs to modify doc-linux-nonfree-text, or povray-doc. This is just too silly a claim to argue with. Even Stallman, notorious supporter of non-free documentation, would disagree. no, it's not at all a silly claim. sure, it would be a lot nicer if all documentation were free along with all software - but it really makes no pratical difference (as opposed to a contrived difference where the argument has to have all the pre-conditions set exactly right to prove that it makes a difference). most users of software, whether it be free or non-free, have no need whatsoever to modify the documentation. Or the software. a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. OK, that's an acceptable claim. However, we require explicit permission to modify in patch form, because the patches may (though they may not) be considered a derivative of the original. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? We should require explicit permission to modify in patch form, as noted above. We don't have that for a lot of documentation. Not a higher standard. or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So you're saying that it makes no practical difference to programs whether modified versions can be freely redistributed. I think you're totally wrong, and I'd daresay nearly everyone in the free software movement agrees with me. I guess you're *consistent*. But what does your strange view on this have to do with Debian, which states in the Debian Free Software Guidelines that the entire project as a whole disagrees with you? So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false. you won't argue with it because you haven't actually thought about it. you're just reacting to the evil 'non-free' term. No. Perhaps you haven't thought about the implications of what you said. You have now said that whether software allows free redistribution of modified copies (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. Of course, you offered no evidence for this sweeping and false statement. It makes a practical difference to me. I am a real person. Therefore, you are wrong. Q.E.D. BTW, please notice that I'm against removing non-free. I don't think bogus unsupported claims that some of the freedoms Debian requires make no practical difference to any real person help my case!
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Craig Sanders wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. Yes, well, that's technically true. Unfortunately modifying a work on a computer involves copying it. not necessarily. editors and patching tools can edit a file without copying it (if you try to define loading into memory as copying, then running software or viewing documentation is illegal) It may be, without a license. :-/ It obviously shouldn't be and I hope it's not, but recent laws and court cases have made this questionable. I think in current US law it *is* considered copying, and there's a specific legal exception for normal transitory copying to memory during normal use. :-P a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. OK, that's an acceptable claim. However, we require explicit permission to modify in patch form, because the patches may (though they may not) be considered a derivative of the original. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? We should require explicit permission to modify in patch form, as noted above. We don't have that for a lot of documentation. Not a higher standard. 1. your scenario made no mention of explicit permission, now it suddenly appears because you need to prove you weren't wrong on this point. I didn't think I needed to mention explicit permission because I thought it was understood that lack of explicit permission is generally lack of permission. I'm sorry I was wrong about that understanding. :-/ 2. explicit permission to write and distribute errata sheets or patches is NOT required, copyright (in the original) does not extend to someone else's work (the patch). Nice theory, but Debian doesn't assume that it's correct. :-P There is in fact a good case to be made that context diffs *do* contain elements of the original. If you intend that errata sheets all be 'free-form' or context-free diff form rather than in the usual patch form, that *would* be definitely non-derivative; but that is even more inconvenient. or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So you're saying that it makes no practical difference to programs whether modified versions can be freely redistributed. no, i did not say it makes no difference to the program. i said it makes no practical difference to the average user. OK, I'll accept that statement. What you said before was any real person, which I disagree strongly with. the average user I agree totally with. I guess we were both using a little too much hyperbole. Sorry about mine. in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not, because they have no intention of ever redistributing it. the ability to view and modify the source code, or just use the program, for their own needs is enough for most people. it's definitely non-free, but it's useful. and, before you try putting words in my mouth, i specifically did not say that that means that non-free software is as good as free software, or that there is no point to free software. what it means is that non-free software can still be useful to people, even if the license sucks. Great. I agree with this. It's not what I read in your previous messages. I read extreme claims about it making no practical difference to any real person whether software was free or not, and I responded to that. I think you're totally wrong, and I'd daresay nearly everyone in the free software how can a statement of observable and verifiable fact (i.e. that non-free software can be useful) be totally wrong? It's not what I was objecting to. You said that the presence or absence of the right to free redistribution of modified versions makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. *That's* what I was saying was totally wrong. I agree that non-free software can be useful. movement agrees
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the end-user, however, Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to modify works even privately; it's legally unclear. and the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all. no one really needs to modify doc-linux-nonfree-text, or povray-doc. This is just too silly a claim to argue with. Even Stallman, notorious supporter of non-free documentation, would disagree. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the end-user, however, Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to modify works even privately; it's legally unclear. and the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all. no one really needs to modify doc-linux-nonfree-text, or povray-doc. This is just too silly a claim to argue with. Even Stallman, notorious supporter of non-free documentation, would disagree. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false.
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the end-user, however, Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to modify works even privately; it's legally unclear. copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. otherwise, writing in the margins of books or using sticky notes would be illegal. and the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all. no one really needs to modify doc-linux-nonfree-text, or povray-doc. This is just too silly a claim to argue with. Even Stallman, notorious supporter of non-free documentation, would disagree. no, it's not at all a silly claim. sure, it would be a lot nicer if all documentation were free along with all software - but it really makes no pratical difference (as opposed to a contrived difference where the argument has to have all the pre-conditions set exactly right to prove that it makes a difference). most users of software, whether it be free or non-free, have no need whatsoever to modify the documentation. a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. any possible need to modify can easily be worked around with an errata sheet, Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with patches. this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? or by submitting a change to the authors. Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a change to its authors. yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it any further, because so many people have already explained why it's totally false. you won't argue with it because you haven't actually thought about it. you're just reacting to the evil 'non-free' term. craig
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: Could you please explain how you reconcile restricting our users' freedoms is wrong with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no (statistically significant) reduction in users' choice resulting from moving non-free packages to a separate infrastructure, could you please explain what you foresee the mechanics of this to be, in light of Anthony Towns' persuasive argument that creation of a separate archive will make substantially less efficient use of available developer I do not believe that users' ability to choose non-free software will be impaired. I wish I could be as sanguine that the infrastructure needed would magically spring up somehow. Even in the absolute worst possible scenario for them -- non-free simply perishes -- they will still be able to download and compile (or install) the software for Debian just the same as they could for Solaris or AIX. I would call that an impairement, compared to what they have today. We can, though, learn from experience. I have been involved with maintaining complete infrastructures outside Debian, complete with repository and bug-tracking system (not debbugs; gnats, I think). While doing so, I participated both with standard Debian work and with work on the non-Debian system. I found it to be no great inconvenience at all; a simple flick of a switch to dupload and care with GPG keys was all it took. Umm. The infrastructure does not spring into being and maintain itself, you know. And that effort would be someting that could well have been spent on Debian. Hopping between BTSs was no great trouble either; and if both can interact via e-mail, it need not even require conscious thought. I think I agree -- one it is in place. Would it be? manoj -- I hate trolls. Maybe I could metamorph it into something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed, fire-breathing dragon. Willow 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: Could you please explain how you reconcile restricting our users' freedoms is wrong with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no (statistically significant) reduction in users' choice resulting from moving non-free packages to a separate infrastructure, could you please explain what you foresee the mechanics of this to be, in light of Anthony Towns' persuasive argument that creation of a separate archive will make substantially less efficient use of available developer I do not believe that users' ability to choose non-free software will be impaired. I wish I could be as sanguine that the infrastructure needed would magically spring up somehow. Even in the absolute worst possible scenario for them -- non-free simply perishes -- they will still be able to download and compile (or install) the software for Debian just the same as they could for Solaris or AIX. I would call that an impairement, compared to what they have today. We can, though, learn from experience. I have been involved with maintaining complete infrastructures outside Debian, complete with repository and bug-tracking system (not debbugs; gnats, I think). While doing so, I participated both with standard Debian work and with work on the non-Debian system. I found it to be no great inconvenience at all; a simple flick of a switch to dupload and care with GPG keys was all it took. Umm. The infrastructure does not spring into being and maintain itself, you know. And that effort would be someting that could well have been spent on Debian. Hopping between BTSs was no great trouble either; and if both can interact via e-mail, it need not even require conscious thought. I think I agree -- one it is in place. Would it be? manoj -- I hate trolls. Maybe I could metamorph it into something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed, fire-breathing dragon. Willow 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
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: [...] As Craig said, the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence changes. Can you give a reference for that, smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel compiler (and is now in main). If RMS negotiated it becoming GNU Eiffel, I doubt it was the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself did much to make the change. Probably less than normal, even. I think human dialogue has to be given nearly all the credit for licence changes. Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Hi Sven, On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages That is only a problem for non-free or contrib packages that are not well maintained. So let's kick out of non-free (and contrib) all packages of bad quality and be done with it. Probably nobody will complain about those anyway, and if they do, they should start fixing the quality issues. That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. this is something that could be improved more *outside* Debian than within it. If we cannot distribute and support software in a quality fashion, we should not do so at all. I trust debian, i may not trust a random outside source. And then, there is the question of the BTS. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of lower quality. Debian also does not have a monopoly on BTS systems. Reportbug is already aware of this. From /usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers: Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Mmm, if we really would want to be ethical, then we should not distribute software that is allowed to be used for commiting non-ethical things, mass murder and other such stuff for example. Come to think of I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ? However, it is true that one could use Debian for good or bad. There are different ways to evaluate the ethics in such a situation. Philosophers write volumes upon the topic. One way is utilitarianism, which I used in my paper Ethics of Free Software [1], written back in 1998. One definition of utilitarianism is: Everyone ought to act so as to bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Some modern philosophers throw probability into the mix as well, so as you evaluate each individual outcome, you also consider the probability of it occuring. That is, in abstract, utilitarianism can be thought of roughly as: ethics = happiness * people * probability Much speak for not saying much. I believe everyone deep inside himself knows what is good and what is not. Where, of course, happiness could be positive or negative, and probability is the likelihood that the specific action you're investigating will occur. When we look at Debian, we can readily see the great utility that it has for so many people. We can also realize that there are instances of unhappiness caused by Debian, such as spammers or crackers that use our operating system. Yet, on balance, I think it is pretty obvious that there has been far more good than ill come from our OS. Ok, fine with me. it, we are already bared to distribute our software to some countries. Sure, this is a restriction of the US governement, but why should we limit our freedom in distributing software because of a governement most of its citizen didn't vote for, and who is not recognized by most of the debian developers. Because it is convenient to host our debian servers on US territory ? To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is sent to the US governement. Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on its own, without the crutch of non-free. It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it. there is a huge difference between almost-free software and proprietary software. If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only, that difference is practically non-existant. Well, this is again an ethical question. If you are a business, and are
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Please provide examples. We're still missing those examples, please John. Those examples are the things that have already happened, such as Qt. No, we need examples for this particular point: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense their software under the GPL You claimed that our providing the non-free section has lessened the incentive for relicensing. Please provide an example of when this was true. I see a lot of people saying that placing things in non-free was the cause of getting the license changed. I'm unconvinced that this is true and that the real cause is not simply exclusion from main. In fact you implied that our non-free section is actually working against relicensing, as quoted above. You have not demonstrated that yet though. I made no claims about timeframe. Fine. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. In the context of this discussion, do you think that the fact that Ocaml was in non-free was of any significance, or was it rather your personal contact/persuasion that made the license change possible? Or did you only initiate the discussion because you were maintaing Ocaml in non-free? FWIW, I've convinced a couple of authors to license their semi-free (which in my context usually means: only free for academic use) under a true Free Software license, without having the package in non-free. One could even argue that once a package is in non-free that might be good enough for some upstreams, so they don't feel the urge to relicense in order to get their stuff into main. Every case is different. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If a package has source code avaiable, the maintainer might feel the urge to port it to as many arches as possible. Then, when he wants update the package, he'd have to recompile on all those arches again in order to get it into testing (AIUI). This might or might not be possible all the time, or he might not care about all of the arches anymore. The non-i386 might eventually get out of sync and rot. This would be especially the case if non-free Build-Depends are required (or Build-Depends which are not even avaiable in non-free), as I guess he couldn't use a Debian box for building the package then. (Dunno how far the cooperation of DSA goes in this regard) Of course, things could just go well, that depends on the maintainers motivation (and possibly others who'd recompile for him). Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If I install package foo on my Alpha, and that package has known security bugs and can be crashed easily, it's of decidedly low quality, even if package foo on i386 has had fixes for all of the above for over a year. As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of lower quality. Then that is your own personal decision. I have found multiple, quality, trustworthy sites. For instance: * Branden's experimental X * Blackdown's JDK archive on Ibiblio * Certain PowerPC X archives at different times Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30 seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden? I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ? Do those actually have an operating system in the conventional sense? To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is sent to the US governement. Why should the US government be prevented from using Debian? And, more to the point, even if the above does happen, what is the problem, considering they could just as easily get it all from any one of dozens of public mirrors? It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it. I disagree with that. to developing a free alternative. Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money Well, in that case, you can go to the author of the piece of software you need, and reach an agreement with him. What is the problem with that. I don't think that's particularly likely to happen. to spare. For instance, someone that works part-time from home may not be in a position to support these things. Also, it is not necessarily Crap. Most of the licence apply to redistribution, rarely to use. And anyway, those are really a minority of the non-free cases. Do you have figures to back that up? possible to buy rights to non-free software, or it may be prohibitively expensive; or the original developers may be unreachable. Yeah, that is another problem. Still, what does it change for him that debian distribute non-free or not, nothing. So where is the problem with removing non-free? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30 seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden? I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free anymore. Do you want to submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead [Y/n]? Additionally, one should be able to tell reportbug to just use the alternative location. That would catch a lot of problems I guess, until the non-free packages have kept up with that /usr/share/bug/$package/control file. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. In the context of this discussion, do you think that the fact that Ocaml was in non-free was of any significance, or was it rather your I think yes, because it accruded my credibility with upstream, and thus made them more receptive to my arguments. personal contact/persuasion that made the license change possible? Or did you only initiate the discussion because you were maintaing Ocaml in non-free? I contacted them as debian maintainer of ocaml, and the package was non-free at that time, and almost orphaned by its previous maintainer. FWIW, I've convinced a couple of authors to license their semi-free (which in my context usually means: only free for academic use) under a true Free Software license, without having the package in non-free. One Sure, but this will not work for everyone. could even argue that once a package is in non-free that might be good enough for some upstreams, so they don't feel the urge to relicense in order to get their stuff into main. Every case is different. Yep, i agree. But once we don't support non-free anymore, only our users lose. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If a package has source code avaiable, the maintainer might feel the urge to port it to as many arches as possible. Then, when he wants update the package, he'd have to recompile on all those arches again in order to get it into testing (AIUI). This might or might not be possible all the time, or he might not care about all of the arches anymore. The non-i386 might eventually get out of sync and rot. This would be especially the case if non-free Build-Depends are required (or Build-Depends which are not even avaiable in non-free), as I guess he couldn't use a Debian box for building the package then. (Dunno how far the cooperation of DSA goes in this regard) Of course, things could just go well, that depends on the maintainers motivation (and possibly others who'd recompile for him). BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If I install package foo on my Alpha, and that package has known security bugs and can be crashed easily, it's of decidedly low quality, even if package foo on i386 has had fixes for all of the above for over a year. Then you are a good candidate for fixing this. As always, quality for packages nobody cares about or use case of packages nobody cares about is bad, no wonder there, happens in main too. I even have a package in main i am convinced nobody uses :)) As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package, then you can build the fixed version. If you don't have the source, sure, it is bad, but was it not you who said you were not of those who did believe all non-free source was ugly evil proprietary binary only stuff ? And in such case, let's just remove the stuff, no problem. netscape and acroread fall into this category. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of lower quality. Then that is your own personal decision. I have found multiple, quality, trustworthy sites. For instance: * Branden's experimental X Which are in experimental and thus in debian. What about joe random backport packages ? * Blackdown's JDK archive on Ibiblio Sure, tried running those on your alpha lately ? Also tried building jboss on them on powerpc ? * Certain PowerPC X archives at different times Well, you even agree that quality varies over time. Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30 seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden? Oh, and when i look at my bug page in the PTS or BTS, i don't see them, and with the amount of mail that flow into my inbox, it can get lost. Certainly by looking at the send/response ratio to many of the debian people, i doubt such a thing would be very usefull. Also, a mail to my own inbox is not usefull at all, and contrary to our social contract (we won't hide problems) as well as problematic in case the maintainer goes MIA. All info on previous bug reports are lost. I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ? Do those actually have an operating system in the conventional sense? Stop playing words, you perfectly know what i mean, be honest with yourself at least. To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is sent to the US governement. Why should the US government be prevented from using Debian? And, more Nope. They are keeping files on _my_ activity asa debian developer, which is a threat to my privacy. to the point, even if the above does happen, what is the problem, considering they could just as easily get it all from any one of dozens of public mirrors? They have to search it, and don't get them send to by us. It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it. I disagree with that. Well, i also disagree in removing non-free, so there. Also i (and others) have given concrete examples about what we would loose should we not support non-free anymore, and you have only given unproven and discutable supposition about the benefit of removing non-free. to developing a free alternative. Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money Well, in that case, you can go to the author of the piece of software
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package, then you can build the fixed version. Ehm, the main point of the 'keep non-free' camp seems to be user convinience. Surely 'compile it yourself' doesn't fall in this category? Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free anymore. Do you want to submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead [Y/n]? Additionally, one should be able to tell reportbug to just use the alternative location. Some time in the last millenium, there was general tentative agreement that there should be a package header which is an email address for reporting of bugs, and that [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be the default. I seem to recall that that died because of a mix about concerns with backwards compatability with dpkg (which could have been worked around by abusing some Description: in some fashion), and concern about the long term stability of email addresses (but few thought it a good idea to have debian host some kind of updatable list of bug contact addresses). FYI, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. what wider look is there to have at it. If the packages is poorly maintained, let's remove it, if it is maintained on only a small number of arches, let's build it only on those arches, until someone with interest for other arches shows enough interest to fix issues involved with other arches. But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, and the whole of non-free is stupid. What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to have them well maintained. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package, then you can build the fixed version. Ehm, the main point of the 'keep non-free' camp seems to be user convinience. Surely 'compile it yourself' doesn't fall in this category? Ah, but you forgot maintainer convenience. Remember, what is the moto of the free/open/whatever software people : if nobody except you cares, you just have become the default maintainer of said project. So if a package is badly maintained (or badly maintained on a subgroup of arches) and you don't care enough to make the effort to fix it, then it is reasonable to either remove the package and forget it, or simply have it unsupported on the arch it is not well maintained. And sorry, but building a package yourself is orders of magnitude easier than doing the full packaging first time, especially for novices. Especially if there is still a maintainer which supports other arches than yours and can help you out. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free anymore. Do you want to submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead [Y/n]? Additionally, one should be able to tell reportbug to just use the alternative location. Some time in the last millenium, there was general tentative agreement that there should be a package header which is an email address for reporting of bugs, and that [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be the default. I seem to recall that that died because of a mix about concerns with backwards compatability with dpkg (which could have been worked around by abusing some Description: in some fashion), and concern about the long term stability of email addresses (but few thought it a good idea to have debian host some kind of updatable list of bug contact addresses). This seems to be partly implemented by the control file mentioned in this sub-thread. My proposal is only an interim solution until we have implemented it fully, in order to ease the transition to nonfree.org. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. No thanks, I don't feel like fixing non-free. So, clearly you don't care about those package, so, what is the problem (mmm, it was the package you care about, not the arch, sorry for the non-clarity of my sentence). But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, and the whole of non-free is stupid. It's just one argument. Of course, removing non-free just because of that is stupid, but we're trying to bring up arguments for discussion, remember? Now, we are argumenting for the sake of it. Let's actually propose a GR, and discuss it during the vote-discussion period. What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to have them well maintained. We all hope they will continue to maintain them well, on nonfree.org. And will you provide the infrastructure for it ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples. I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that you should spot them. In your first paragraph, you overstated your case -- you used a universal quantifier (all) instead of an existential quantifier (some). That good enough, or you want me to try and imitate Branden? that's hardly a crime serious enough to even begin to discredit my line of argument. in any case, i still maintain that it is accurate - look to their actions and their arguments, rather than their protestations of innocence since i made that accusation. none of them give a damn what's actually in non-free, as far as they are concerned it's all impure, all as bad as proprietary software. it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point. Yeah. So? so it's not worth spending any time or effort responding. all that does is invite another round of tedious quibbling. the purpose of quibbling is not to engage in debate but to distract from points of arguments that you have no answer to. i choose not to fall into such obvious traps. his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster. [...] So ignore that part. Or say that some of what he wrote was silly. Or whatever... but put some useful content into your posts. most of his post was stupid crap like that. if there was anything of real substance in there, it was buried so deep that it wasn't worth the effort of extracting and commenting on. also...if he wants to participate in a debate, surely it's HIS responsibility to clearly state his case without burying it so deeply in crap that it can't be seen. it's certainly not his opponents' job to make or clarify his arguments for him. Nevertheless, I think you have some positive points you could make, if you could get out of ranting mode and into thinking about what you're saying mode. i didn't think i was ranting. i could have ignored his message or i could have made some amusing (to me, at least) comment about his pedantry. i chose the latter. One thing, though -- if you've been reading this message as you replied, you're going to have some nasty comments aimed at me at the top of your reply. why? nothing you said was particularly objectionable. mistaken and misguided, but not offensive. craig
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If a package has source code avaiable, the maintainer might feel the urge to port it to as many arches as possible. Then, when he wants update the package, he'd have to recompile on all those arches again in order to get it into testing (AIUI). This might or might not be possible all the time, or he might not care about all of the arches anymore. The non-i386 might eventually get out of sync and rot. This would be especially the case if non-free Build-Depends are required (or Build-Depends which are not even avaiable in non-free), as I guess he couldn't use a Debian box for building the package then. (Dunno how far the cooperation of DSA goes in this regard) Of course, things could just go well, that depends on the maintainers motivation (and possibly others who'd recompile for him). Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. In the context of this discussion, do you think that the fact that Ocaml was in non-free was of any significance, or was it rather your personal contact/persuasion that made the license change possible? Or did you only initiate the discussion because you were maintaing Ocaml in non-free? FWIW, I've convinced a couple of authors to license their semi-free (which in my context usually means: only free for academic use) under a true Free Software license, without having the package in non-free. One could even argue that once a package is in non-free that might be good enough for some upstreams, so they don't feel the urge to relicense in order to get their stuff into main. Every case is different. Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Hi Sven, On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages That is only a problem for non-free or contrib packages that are not well maintained. So let's kick out of non-free (and contrib) all packages of bad quality and be done with it. Probably nobody will complain about those anyway, and if they do, they should start fixing the quality issues. That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. this is something that could be improved more *outside* Debian than within it. If we cannot distribute and support software in a quality fashion, we should not do so at all. I trust debian, i may not trust a random outside source. And then, there is the question of the BTS. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of lower quality. Debian also does not have a monopoly on BTS systems. Reportbug is already aware of this. From /usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers: Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Mmm, if we really would want to be ethical, then we should not distribute software that is allowed to be used for commiting non-ethical things, mass murder and other such stuff for example. Come to think of I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ? However, it is true that one could use Debian for good or bad. There are different ways to evaluate the ethics in such a situation. Philosophers write volumes upon the topic. One way is utilitarianism, which I used in my paper Ethics of Free Software [1], written back in 1998. One definition of utilitarianism is: Everyone ought to act so as to bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Some modern philosophers throw probability into the mix as well, so as you evaluate each individual outcome, you also consider the probability of it occuring. That is, in abstract, utilitarianism can be thought of roughly as: ethics = happiness * people * probability Much speak for not saying much. I believe everyone deep inside himself knows what is good and what is not. Where, of course, happiness could be positive or negative, and probability is the likelihood that the specific action you're investigating will occur. When we look at Debian, we can readily see the great utility that it has for so many people. We can also realize that there are instances of unhappiness caused by Debian, such as spammers or crackers that use our operating system. Yet, on balance, I think it is pretty obvious that there has been far more good than ill come from our OS. Ok, fine with me. it, we are already bared to distribute our software to some countries. Sure, this is a restriction of the US governement, but why should we limit our freedom in distributing software because of a governement most of its citizen didn't vote for, and who is not recognized by most of the debian developers. Because it is convenient to host our debian servers on US territory ? To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is sent to the US governement. Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on its own, without the crutch of non-free. It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it. there is a huge difference between almost-free software and proprietary software. If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only, that difference is practically non-existant. Well, this is again an ethical question. If you are a business, and are
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote: On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: [...] As Craig said, the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence changes. Can you give a reference for that, smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel compiler (and is now in main). If RMS negotiated it becoming GNU Eiffel, I doubt it was the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself did much to make the change. Probably less than normal, even. I think human dialogue has to be given nearly all the credit for licence changes. Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Please provide examples. We're still missing those examples, please John. Those examples are the things that have already happened, such as Qt. No, we need examples for this particular point: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense their software under the GPL You claimed that our providing the non-free section has lessened the incentive for relicensing. Please provide an example of when this was true. I see a lot of people saying that placing things in non-free was the cause of getting the license changed. I'm unconvinced that this is true and that the real cause is not simply exclusion from main. In fact you implied that our non-free section is actually working against relicensing, as quoted above. You have not demonstrated that yet though. I made no claims about timeframe. Fine. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If I install package foo on my Alpha, and that package has known security bugs and can be crashed easily, it's of decidedly low quality, even if package foo on i386 has had fixes for all of the above for over a year. As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of lower quality. Then that is your own personal decision. I have found multiple, quality, trustworthy sites. For instance: * Branden's experimental X * Blackdown's JDK archive on Ibiblio * Certain PowerPC X archives at different times Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30 seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden? I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ? Do those actually have an operating system in the conventional sense? To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is sent to the US governement. Why should the US government be prevented from using Debian? And, more to the point, even if the above does happen, what is the problem, considering they could just as easily get it all from any one of dozens of public mirrors? It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it. I disagree with that. to developing a free alternative. Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money Well, in that case, you can go to the author of the piece of software you need, and reach an agreement with him. What is the problem with that. I don't think that's particularly likely to happen. to spare. For instance, someone that works part-time from home may not be in a position to support these things. Also, it is not necessarily Crap. Most of the licence apply to redistribution, rarely to use. And anyway, those are really a minority of the non-free cases. Do you have figures to back that up? possible to buy rights to non-free software, or it may be prohibitively expensive; or the original developers may be unreachable. Yeah, that is another problem. Still, what does it change for him that debian distribute non-free or not, nothing. So where is the problem with removing non-free?
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If I install package foo on my Alpha, and that package has known security bugs and can be crashed easily, it's of decidedly low quality, even if package foo on i386 has had fixes for all of the above for over a year. Then you are a good candidate for fixing this. As always, quality for packages nobody cares about or use case of packages nobody cares about is bad, no wonder there, happens in main too. I even have a package in main i am convinced nobody uses :)) As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package, then you can build the fixed version. If you don't have the source, sure, it is bad, but was it not you who said you were not of those who did believe all non-free source was ugly evil proprietary binary only stuff ? And in such case, let's just remove the stuff, no problem. netscape and acroread fall into this category. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Nope. Outside packages are not to be trusted, and most of the time of lower quality. Then that is your own personal decision. I have found multiple, quality, trustworthy sites. For instance: * Branden's experimental X Which are in experimental and thus in debian. What about joe random backport packages ? * Blackdown's JDK archive on Ibiblio Sure, tried running those on your alpha lately ? Also tried building jboss on them on powerpc ? * Certain PowerPC X archives at different times Well, you even agree that quality varies over time. Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30 seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden? Oh, and when i look at my bug page in the PTS or BTS, i don't see them, and with the amount of mail that flow into my inbox, it can get lost. Certainly by looking at the send/response ratio to many of the debian people, i doubt such a thing would be very usefull. Also, a mail to my own inbox is not usefull at all, and contrary to our social contract (we won't hide problems) as well as problematic in case the maintainer goes MIA. All info on previous bug reports are lost. I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. Sure, when you embedd it in missiles and such, no ? Do those actually have an operating system in the conventional sense? Stop playing words, you perfectly know what i mean, be honest with yourself at least. To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Yeah, but i am not at all happy that each and everyone of my uploads is sent to the US governement. Why should the US government be prevented from using Debian? And, more Nope. They are keeping files on _my_ activity asa debian developer, which is a threat to my privacy. to the point, even if the above does happen, what is the problem, considering they could just as easily get it all from any one of dozens of public mirrors? They have to search it, and don't get them send to by us. It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. Yeah, sure. but there is no problem too in keeping it. I disagree with that. Well, i also disagree in removing non-free, so there. Also i (and others) have given concrete examples about what we would loose should we not support non-free anymore, and you have only given unproven and discutable supposition about the benefit of removing non-free. to developing a free alternative. Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money Well, in that case, you can go to the author of the piece of software
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it is a good thing for its eventual removal. If a package has source code avaiable, the maintainer might feel the urge to port it to as many arches as possible. Then, when he wants update the package, he'd have to recompile on all those arches again in order to get it into testing (AIUI). This might or might not be possible all the time, or he might not care about all of the arches anymore. The non-i386 might eventually get out of sync and rot. This would be especially the case if non-free Build-Depends are required (or Build-Depends which are not even avaiable in non-free), as I guess he couldn't use a Debian box for building the package then. (Dunno how far the cooperation of DSA goes in this regard) Of course, things could just go well, that depends on the maintainers motivation (and possibly others who'd recompile for him). BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but decidedly not for the maintainer. Why? Adding one single file to the package, which takes about 30 seconds and must be done only once, is a huge burden? I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free anymore. Do you want to submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead [Y/n]? Additionally, one should be able to tell reportbug to just use the alternative location. That would catch a lot of problems I guess, until the non-free packages have kept up with that /usr/share/bug/$package/control file. Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free anymore. Do you want to submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead [Y/n]? Additionally, one should be able to tell reportbug to just use the alternative location. Some time in the last millenium, there was general tentative agreement that there should be a package header which is an email address for reporting of bugs, and that [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be the default. I seem to recall that that died because of a mix about concerns with backwards compatability with dpkg (which could have been worked around by abusing some Description: in some fashion), and concern about the long term stability of email addresses (but few thought it a good idea to have debian host some kind of updatable list of bug contact addresses). FYI, -- Raul
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. In the context of this discussion, do you think that the fact that Ocaml was in non-free was of any significance, or was it rather your I think yes, because it accruded my credibility with upstream, and thus made them more receptive to my arguments. personal contact/persuasion that made the license change possible? Or did you only initiate the discussion because you were maintaing Ocaml in non-free? I contacted them as debian maintainer of ocaml, and the package was non-free at that time, and almost orphaned by its previous maintainer. FWIW, I've convinced a couple of authors to license their semi-free (which in my context usually means: only free for academic use) under a true Free Software license, without having the package in non-free. One Sure, but this will not work for everyone. could even argue that once a package is in non-free that might be good enough for some upstreams, so they don't feel the urge to relicense in order to get their stuff into main. Every case is different. Yep, i agree. But once we don't support non-free anymore, only our users lose. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package, then you can build the fixed version. Ehm, the main point of the 'keep non-free' camp seems to be user convinience. Surely 'compile it yourself' doesn't fall in this category? Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free anymore. Do you want to submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead [Y/n]? Additionally, one should be able to tell reportbug to just use the alternative location. Some time in the last millenium, there was general tentative agreement that there should be a package header which is an email address for reporting of bugs, and that [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be the default. I seem to recall that that died because of a mix about concerns with backwards compatability with dpkg (which could have been worked around by abusing some Description: in some fashion), and concern about the long term stability of email addresses (but few thought it a good idea to have debian host some kind of updatable list of bug contact addresses). This seems to be partly implemented by the control file mentioned in this sub-thread. My proposal is only an interim solution until we have implemented it fully, in order to ease the transition to nonfree.org. Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. No thanks, I don't feel like fixing non-free. But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, and the whole of non-free is stupid. It's just one argument. Of course, removing non-free just because of that is stupid, but we're trying to bring up arguments for discussion, remember? What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to have them well maintained. We all hope they will continue to maintain them well, on nonfree.org. Michael
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely irrelevant. Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package, then you can build the fixed version. Ehm, the main point of the 'keep non-free' camp seems to be user convinience. Surely 'compile it yourself' doesn't fall in this category? Ah, but you forgot maintainer convenience. Remember, what is the moto of the free/open/whatever software people : if nobody except you cares, you just have become the default maintainer of said project. So if a package is badly maintained (or badly maintained on a subgroup of arches) and you don't care enough to make the effort to fix it, then it is reasonable to either remove the package and forget it, or simply have it unsupported on the arch it is not well maintained. And sorry, but building a package yourself is orders of magnitude easier than doing the full packaging first time, especially for novices. Especially if there is still a maintainer which supports other arches than yours and can help you out. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. what wider look is there to have at it. If the packages is poorly maintained, let's remove it, if it is maintained on only a small number of arches, let's build it only on those arches, until someone with interest for other arches shows enough interest to fix issues involved with other arches. But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, and the whole of non-free is stupid. What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to have them well maintained. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. No thanks, I don't feel like fixing non-free. So, clearly you don't care about those package, so, what is the problem (mmm, it was the package you care about, not the arch, sorry for the non-clarity of my sentence). But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, and the whole of non-free is stupid. It's just one argument. Of course, removing non-free just because of that is stupid, but we're trying to bring up arguments for discussion, remember? Now, we are argumenting for the sake of it. Let's actually propose a GR, and discuss it during the vote-discussion period. What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to have them well maintained. We all hope they will continue to maintain them well, on nonfree.org. And will you provide the infrastructure for it ? Friendly, Sven Luther
OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers (such as plan for contrib), or I agree. On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, sure. The only problem with that [...] Yep, there's problems. We don't know how difficult it will be to overcome them, but it may be possible to overcome them, one way or another. That said, i may write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], what should i ask them ? Really, whatever interests you. Some questions may be answered in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs I think, but they may have interesting opinions about things where -legal participants were not sure. Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this soft-ADSL library ? Sorry, I work flat out and don't need it myself right now. I think you are mostly wrong about without even bothering to look at the issues in detail. Many of the participants here (with a range of Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail. You've changed your accusation. I think that you're probably right now: no one person has examined all of non-free. That is not the same as not having looked at the issues. Possibly they don't know them all, but do you? If so, can you publish a full bullet list summary of them for us? I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i guess you understand). We make mistakes sometimes already and have to correct them. This sometimes results in the package being removed entirely and every maintainer I've worked with has been honest, thoughtful and polite about it. I doubt that will change. the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main? Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why guess? Because i have more usefull things to do with my time ? I think you probably have more useful things to do than lob idle random accusations around, too. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers (such as plan for contrib), or I agree. Ok. On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, sure. The only problem with that [...] Yep, there's problems. We don't know how difficult it will be to overcome them, but it may be possible to overcome them, one way or another. Ok. That said, i may write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], what should i ask them ? Really, whatever interests you. Some questions may be answered in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs I think, but they may have interesting opinions about things where -legal participants were not sure. A, we misunderstood each other. I have no doubt about the legal situation, but about asking help for getting a free replacement of the ADSL library. Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this soft-ADSL library ? Sorry, I work flat out and don't need it myself right now. This was not directed to you. See above. I think you are mostly wrong about without even bothering to look at the issues in detail. Many of the participants here (with a range of Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail. You've changed your accusation. I think that you're probably right Not really, maybe my previous words were not clear enough or something. Anyway, i am not a word nitpicker like others here, and i believe that the intention is more important than the words used. now: no one person has examined all of non-free. That is not the same as not having looked at the issues. Possibly they don't know them all, but do you? If so, can you publish a full bullet list summary of them for us? The thing is different. They are asking for the removal of all the stuff, so they should know about all the stuff. I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if it can stay, if it has made progress, etc. That said, most people simply don't care enough about non-free, which is why we have it, and it is in general of not so good quality. But this supopses some work, and i believe it is work that is on the side of those who want to convince us to remove non-free. I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind the word, and what will actually happen. Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i guess you understand). We make mistakes sometimes already and have to correct them. This sometimes results in the package being removed entirely and every maintainer I've worked with has been honest, thoughtful and polite about it. I doubt that will change. Yep, but because there was non-free. I know i would have opposed some of those decisions if there was not non-free. I guess others would have to, especially in the border cases. Also, the amount of non-free documentation in main sets a bad precedent. the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main? Yes. naturally. Any other stance would be highly hypocrit on our part. Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why guess? Because i have more usefull things to do with my time ? I think you probably have more useful things to do than lob idle random accusations around, too. Sure sure. Debian-vote is an open channel, and non-DD have already participated in the debate in the past. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if it can stay, if it has made progress, etc. Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I think it went to the list yesterday. I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind the word, and what will actually happen. Not just word play, as there is a large difference between the two. The point I wanted to remind people that it's not really safe to draw many conclusions from non-response, which you didn't. I think the non-response is unremarkable and I thought I responded, anyway. Yep, but because there was non-free. I know i would have opposed some of those decisions if there was not non-free. I guess others would have to, especially in the border cases. That doesn't really change the free/non-free status of the package, but it might make consensus more difficult to achieve. Also, the amount of non-free documentation in main sets a bad precedent. I agree. the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main? Yes. naturally. Any other stance would be highly hypocrit on our part. Brain fart, excuse me. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in this debate than you are. I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are always false in every non-trivial scenario. I have never heard of anything observed by more than one person where they all shared the same opinion of it. It is impossible for anything that happens on a public mailing list. Even in the most extreme cases. At best you can comment on your own (subjective) opinion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:02:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote: then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation, On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. Note that debian-private also does not meet DFSG, and is not guaranteed by the social contract. If the only point here is that debian resources shouldn't be used to distribute non-DFSG stuff we should place getting rid of debian-private at a higher level of priority than non-free. debian-private is fairly low-traffic. I think you mean getting rid of non-public-list email, which includes listmaster, debian-admin, and all the developer addresses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind the word, and what will actually happen. Not just word play, as there is a large difference between the two. The point I wanted to remind people that it's not really safe to draw many conclusions from non-response, which you didn't. I think the non-response is unremarkable and I thought I responded, anyway. Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. It's just not conclusive evidence. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. It's just not conclusive evidence. I think that may be an irrational view. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. Not for long. The bunny would eat it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3; that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. The lack of evidence is due to the fact that (almost) no one else has seen debootstrap 0.3, so there hasn't been any opportunity to file bug reports about it; not that there aren't any bugs. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. That's Occam's razor, which says you should draw the conclusion that requires the least on assumptions for which there's no evidence. (There's no unicorn requires no assumptions; There is a unicorn requires the assumption that it hides whenever you try looking for it, that it's always very quiet, and that it hid when you tried hooking up the flashlight and webcam...) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3; that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. It's totally inadequate evidence, but nevertheless it's evidence. The lack of evidence is due to the fact that (almost) no one else has seen debootstrap 0.3, so there hasn't been any opportunity to file bug reports about it; not that there aren't any bugs. And after many years of experience with software we expect that all software of any complexity has bugs, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This is complicated by the fuzziness of the concept of bug. But this is also a matter of degree -- if there's no evidence after one person searches for one hour, that means less than if there's no evidence after a thousand people search for five years. [And if we know something about the capabilities of those people that knowledge adds to the evidence.] If Sven has spent a lot of time attempting to find DFSG free adsl support software for a specific card, and has contacted the manufacturer and even the manufacturer of that card is not able find such software, that's a different kind of evidence than no bug reports being filed on a newly released piece of software. This is not to say that such software will never exist. It does not prove that such software does not currently exists. It is, however evidence that it does not exist. However, I think the point is that evidence isn't proof. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. That's Occam's razor, which says you should draw the conclusion that requires the least on assumptions for which there's no evidence. (There's no unicorn requires no assumptions; There is a unicorn requires the assumption that it hides whenever you try looking for it, that it's always very quiet, and that it hid when you tried hooking up the flashlight and webcam...) Occam's razor is another set of words for talking about the absence of evidence. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you are not telepathic). Unfalsifiable statements have no utility as premises for a practical argument (as opposed to a formal one), because their truth cannot be determined. Practical arguments require not only that their reasoning be cogent and valid, but that their premises are factual. they like to pretend that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free, that source-code isn't available. This statement is without foundation. Cite evidence of an advocate of removing non-free misrepresenting the availability of source code. Moreover, since I advocate the resolution, and since I know that source code is available for the packages in non-free in many (but not all) cases, your argument (One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common) commits the fallacy of composition[1]. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth value of an unfalsifiable statement, or of a fallacious statement that is without foundation, is indeterminate, and not of utility in practical reasoning -- consequently this statement is null. while there are a handful of packages in non-free that don't have complete or usable source code, While imprecise (I'll assume a handful is something less than 50%), this statement is not particularly objectionable apart from its lack of foundation (you have not enumerated which packages in non-free have incomplete or unusable source code). and even fewer that don't have any source code, Again, lacks foundation, but not otherwise objectionable. the vast majority of software in non-free is there because the license doesn't quite meet the requirements of the DFSG, Actually, by definition, *all* of the software in non-free is there because the applicable licenses don't meet the requirements of the DFSG.[2] just as much GNU documentation does not quite meet the requirements of the DFSG. Indeed; once a distinguishing criterion is defined, that some things satisfy it and others don't is a truism. Your second paragraph does not appear to raise any points under contention. The majority of programs in non-free come with source code and allow the user to modify and use it as they like. Again, lacks foundation, but not otherwise objectionable. However, some prohibit commercial exploitation or sale, some prohibit distribution of modified versions, some prohibit use by government agencies, some allow free use only for educational or private purposes. You cite no examples (and thus provide no foundation), but it is true that all of these are ways to fail the DFSG. some of it is affected by software patents, so it is free in certain countries but non-free in others. You cite no examples (and thus provide no foundation), but it is true that the presence of a patent on software that is incompatible with the DFSG renders the software unable to be legally or non-tortiously used in conjunction with all of the freedoms under the DFSG. In short, almost all of the software is almost-free or (using RMS' terminology) semi-free software. I take it your definition of almost-free is as follows: prohibits commercial exploitation or sale; prohibits distribution of modified versions; prohibits use by government agencies; prohibits use for non-educational or non-private purposes; or is restricted in any way by patents. Debian doesn't distinguish between the types of non-free... That is apparently true. I know of no nontechnical position statement issued by the Project that attempts distinguish among varieties of non-freeness and by whose definitions anyone is bound. whether it is non-free because it is proprietary What is your definition of proprietary? Some would define it as prohibits commercial exploitation or sale; prohibits distribution of modified versions; prohibits use by government agencies; prohibits use for non-educational or non-private purposes; or is restricted in any way by patents, among other restrictions. Because you offer no definition for this term it is difficult to understand how you use it as foundation for further argument. or non-free because use by spammers is prohibited, it is treated the same: if we can distribute it at all, it can go in non-free. It does seem to be the case that any package which is not DFSG but still distributable, at least in certain countries where prominent Debian mirrors reside, can be distributed in the non-free section. if we can't distribute it under any circumstances, then we can ignore it. More precisely, if we cannot legally or non-tortiously distribute it under any circumstances, then we endeavor not to do so. Aside from the convenience for our users, this has also been useful in motivating
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] Dear PedantBot 2004TM, Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. craig ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly tedious minor points that last year's version would have completely missed. kudos to your programmers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods, but you did make a number of mistakes, and this as a response falls incredibly flat. If you're not going to acknowledge your mistakes, just leave them be, focus on the important issues, and try and accomplish something positive. You could have taken Branden's criticism as constructive, and an opportunity to highlight the parts of what you had to say that were worthwhile. Instead, your post was so disappointing that I wound up choosing to waste everyone's time with this personal comment. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3; that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. It's totally inadequate evidence, but nevertheless it's evidence. I don't think it's possible to have evidence for something that's false, although it's certainly possible to mistakenly think something is evidence for something it's not. But this is also a matter of degree -- if there's no evidence after one person searches for one hour, that means less than if there's no evidence after a thousand people search for five years. It depends if they're looking over the same ground with the same tools. If Sven has spent a lot of time attempting to find DFSG free adsl support software for a specific card, and has contacted the manufacturer and even the manufacturer of that card is not able find such software, that's a different kind of evidence than no bug reports being filed on a newly released piece of software. This isn't absence of evidence, it's written and spoken testimony that people aren't aware of something -- ie, you've got people actually saying no, I don't know of any such thing, rather than just a lack of people saying yes, look over here. Occam's razor is another set of words for talking about the absence of evidence. Occam's razor gives you the ability to draw some conclusions in the absence of evidence. It doesn't let you make use of the absence of evidence to make positive claims. (And in particular, it requires some evidence in order to make the alternative more complicated to explain. You need someone to have looked in the sock draw, and not to have found a mini unicorn, eg.) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods, but you did make a number of mistakes, you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples. at most, i made a few small exaggerations and used a few 'poetic' turns of phrase - but AFAIK, no actual mistakes. and this as a response falls incredibly flat. you mean you really think his quibbling over words was worth the time it took to read? it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point. If you're not going to acknowledge your mistakes, just leave them be, focus on the important issues, and try and accomplish something positive. please point them out and i'll evaluate whether they are worth 'acknowledging'. You could have taken Branden's criticism as constructive, and an his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster. quibbling about words is not useful criticism. paraphrasing and sometimes distorting what i said and then declaring tautology! i win! really isn't a very productive style, either. if he had anything relevant to say, he would have engaged with the substance rather than quibbling over the precise definitions of words - words which he knows as well as i, in the context of the free software dialogue that has been occuring over the last decade or so. anyone in the free software world knows what 'proprietary' means, and most people with access to a dictionary do too and can figure out what it means in the context of free software. as should have been obvious to anyone with more than one or two neurons, i was specifically referring to binary-only software that is not free in any sense of the word except perhaps dollar cost. 'non-free' means 'non-free according to the DFSG' - the only definition that matters to debian developers. 'semi-free' or 'almost-free' means software that ALMOST meets the criteria of the DFSG but fails on ONLY one or two points - i.e. most of the software in the debian non-free archive. the term 'semi-free' at least is also defined on the FSF site, although the FSF definition wrongly emphasises the selfish prohibition of profit as the defining criteria when there are often other criteria (such as no use by DoD or other government depts, or use only by schools etc). opportunity to highlight the parts of what you had to say that were worthwhile. Instead, your post was so disappointing that I wound up choosing to waste everyone's time with this personal comment. well, if you want to waste your time trying to make yourself look fair and balanced over garbage like this then go right ahead. personally, i think there have been far better arguments produced by the get-rid-of-non-free bigots than this kind of trivial quibbling. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods, but you did make a number of mistakes, On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples. I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that you should spot them. In your first paragraph, you overstated your case -- you used a universal quantifier (all) instead of an existential quantifier (some). That good enough, or you want me to try and imitate Branden? at most, i made a few small exaggerations and used a few 'poetic' turns of phrase - but AFAIK, no actual mistakes. Yeah, that. and this as a response falls incredibly flat. you mean you really think his quibbling over words was worth the time it took to read? About a third of it, maybe. it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point. Yeah. So? If you're not going to acknowledge your mistakes, just leave them be, focus on the important issues, and try and accomplish something positive. please point them out and i'll evaluate whether they are worth 'acknowledging'. I'm talking about your few small exaggerations and 'poetic' turns of phrase, then. You could have taken Branden's criticism as constructive, and an his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster. quibbling about words is not useful criticism. paraphrasing and sometimes distorting what i said and then declaring tautology! i win! really isn't a very productive style, either. if he had anything relevant to say, he would have engaged with the substance rather than quibbling over the precise definitions of words - words which he knows as well as i, in the context of the free software dialogue that has been occuring over the last decade or so. So ignore that part. Or say that some of what he wrote was silly. Or whatever... but put some useful content into your posts. anyone in the free software world knows what 'proprietary' means, and most people with access to a dictionary do too and can figure out what it means in the context of free software. as should have been obvious to anyone with more than one or two neurons, i was specifically referring to binary-only software that is not free in any sense of the word except perhaps dollar cost. No, that's actually a reasonable point -- there are a lot of different concepts of what proprietary means. If you go with the FSF meaning, software which is always available in source form, redistributable to everyone, and which never costs anything can be proprietary. Other people prefer to have proprietary only refer to software which is not redistributable to anyone, which most people can only get in binary form and that only if they pay money. There are other definitions. 'non-free' means 'non-free according to the DFSG' - the only definition that matters to debian developers. You might think that, but some debian developers also care about the FSF view of things. Maybe you are trying to say the only definition that should be allowed to matter to debian developers, but I don't think things are that restricted. 'semi-free' or 'almost-free' means software that ALMOST meets the criteria of the DFSG but fails on ONLY one or two points - i.e. most of the software in the debian non-free archive. the term 'semi-free' at least is also defined on the FSF site, although the FSF definition wrongly emphasises the selfish prohibition of profit as the defining criteria when there are often other criteria (such as no use by DoD or other government depts, or use only by schools etc). Yeah, and the FSF definition is a bit more specific than yours. But this is turning into more of a rant than anything constructive. well, if you want to waste your time trying to make yourself look fair and balanced over garbage like this then go right ahead. Nah, I'm wasting my time making myself look silly -- most of this is completely off topic, and I'm coming across as a meddling pain in the ass. Nevertheless, I think you have some positive points you could make, if you could get out of ranting mode and into thinking about what you're saying mode. One thing, though -- if you've been reading this message as you replied, you're going to have some nasty comments aimed at me at the top of your reply. If that's the case, please go back and re-read them before sending. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples. I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that you should spot them. In your first paragraph, you overstated your case -- you used a universal quantifier (all) instead of an existential quantifier (some). That good enough, or you want me to try and imitate Branden? that's hardly a crime serious enough to even begin to discredit my line of argument. in any case, i still maintain that it is accurate - look to their actions and their arguments, rather than their protestations of innocence since i made that accusation. none of them give a damn what's actually in non-free, as far as they are concerned it's all impure, all as bad as proprietary software. it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point. Yeah. So? so it's not worth spending any time or effort responding. all that does is invite another round of tedious quibbling. the purpose of quibbling is not to engage in debate but to distract from points of arguments that you have no answer to. i choose not to fall into such obvious traps. his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster. [...] So ignore that part. Or say that some of what he wrote was silly. Or whatever... but put some useful content into your posts. most of his post was stupid crap like that. if there was anything of real substance in there, it was buried so deep that it wasn't worth the effort of extracting and commenting on. also...if he wants to participate in a debate, surely it's HIS responsibility to clearly state his case without burying it so deeply in crap that it can't be seen. it's certainly not his opponents' job to make or clarify his arguments for him. Nevertheless, I think you have some positive points you could make, if you could get out of ranting mode and into thinking about what you're saying mode. i didn't think i was ranting. i could have ignored his message or i could have made some amusing (to me, at least) comment about his pedantry. i chose the latter. One thing, though -- if you've been reading this message as you replied, you're going to have some nasty comments aimed at me at the top of your reply. why? nothing you said was particularly objectionable. mistaken and misguided, but not offensive. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense their software under the GPL; it seems that the areas that we have been successful already are testament to what we have the potential to do were we to carry an even larger carrot and stick. Please provide examples. We're still missing those examples, please John. You asked Craig Sanders to prove that our placing KDE in non-free helped to have its license changed. Please provide proof that that change would've occurred sooner if we hadn't packaged KDE at all, or an equivalent example. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers (such as plan for contrib), or I agree. On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, sure. The only problem with that [...] Yep, there's problems. We don't know how difficult it will be to overcome them, but it may be possible to overcome them, one way or another. That said, i may write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], what should i ask them ? Really, whatever interests you. Some questions may be answered in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs I think, but they may have interesting opinions about things where -legal participants were not sure. Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this soft-ADSL library ? Sorry, I work flat out and don't need it myself right now. I think you are mostly wrong about without even bothering to look at the issues in detail. Many of the participants here (with a range of Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail. You've changed your accusation. I think that you're probably right now: no one person has examined all of non-free. That is not the same as not having looked at the issues. Possibly they don't know them all, but do you? If so, can you publish a full bullet list summary of them for us? I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i guess you understand). We make mistakes sometimes already and have to correct them. This sometimes results in the package being removed entirely and every maintainer I've worked with has been honest, thoughtful and polite about it. I doubt that will change. the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main? Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why guess? Because i have more usefull things to do with my time ? I think you probably have more useful things to do than lob idle random accusations around, too. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers (such as plan for contrib), or I agree. Ok. On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, sure. The only problem with that [...] Yep, there's problems. We don't know how difficult it will be to overcome them, but it may be possible to overcome them, one way or another. Ok. That said, i may write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], what should i ask them ? Really, whatever interests you. Some questions may be answered in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs I think, but they may have interesting opinions about things where -legal participants were not sure. A, we misunderstood each other. I have no doubt about the legal situation, but about asking help for getting a free replacement of the ADSL library. Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this soft-ADSL library ? Sorry, I work flat out and don't need it myself right now. This was not directed to you. See above. I think you are mostly wrong about without even bothering to look at the issues in detail. Many of the participants here (with a range of Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail. You've changed your accusation. I think that you're probably right Not really, maybe my previous words were not clear enough or something. Anyway, i am not a word nitpicker like others here, and i believe that the intention is more important than the words used. now: no one person has examined all of non-free. That is not the same as not having looked at the issues. Possibly they don't know them all, but do you? If so, can you publish a full bullet list summary of them for us? The thing is different. They are asking for the removal of all the stuff, so they should know about all the stuff. I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if it can stay, if it has made progress, etc. That said, most people simply don't care enough about non-free, which is why we have it, and it is in general of not so good quality. But this supopses some work, and i believe it is work that is on the side of those who want to convince us to remove non-free. I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind the word, and what will actually happen. Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i guess you understand). We make mistakes sometimes already and have to correct them. This sometimes results in the package being removed entirely and every maintainer I've worked with has been honest, thoughtful and polite about it. I doubt that will change. Yep, but because there was non-free. I know i would have opposed some of those decisions if there was not non-free. I guess others would have to, especially in the border cases. Also, the amount of non-free documentation in main sets a bad precedent. the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main? Yes. naturally. Any other stance would be highly hypocrit on our part. Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why guess? Because i have more usefull things to do with my time ? I think you probably have more useful things to do than lob idle random accusations around, too. Sure sure. Debian-vote is an open channel, and non-DD have already participated in the debate in the past. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in this debate than you are. I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are always false in every non-trivial scenario. I have never heard of anything observed by more than one person where they all shared the same opinion of it. It is impossible for anything that happens on a public mailing list. Even in the most extreme cases. At best you can comment on your own (subjective) opinion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Note that debian-private also does not meet DFSG, and is not guaranteed by the social contract. If the only point here is that debian resources shouldn't be used to distribute non-DFSG stuff we should place getting rid of debian-private at a higher level of priority than non-free. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:07:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: debian-private is fairly low-traffic. I think you mean getting rid of non-public-list email, which includes listmaster, debian-admin, and all the developer addresses. It's the restriction on redistribution that's at issue here. -- Raul
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if it can stay, if it has made progress, etc. Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I think it went to the list yesterday. I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind the word, and what will actually happen. Not just word play, as there is a large difference between the two. The point I wanted to remind people that it's not really safe to draw many conclusions from non-response, which you didn't. I think the non-response is unremarkable and I thought I responded, anyway. Yep, but because there was non-free. I know i would have opposed some of those decisions if there was not non-free. I guess others would have to, especially in the border cases. That doesn't really change the free/non-free status of the package, but it might make consensus more difficult to achieve. Also, the amount of non-free documentation in main sets a bad precedent. I agree. the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main? Yes. naturally. Any other stance would be highly hypocrit on our part. Brain fart, excuse me. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind the word, and what will actually happen. Not just word play, as there is a large difference between the two. The point I wanted to remind people that it's not really safe to draw many conclusions from non-response, which you didn't. I think the non-response is unremarkable and I thought I responded, anyway. Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. It's just not conclusive evidence. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. -- Raul
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense their software under the GPL; it seems that the areas that we have been successful already are testament to what we have the potential to do were we to carry an even larger carrot and stick. Please provide examples. We're still missing those examples, please John. Those examples are the things that have already happened, such as Qt. You asked Craig Sanders to prove that our placing KDE in non-free helped to have its license changed. Please provide proof that that change would've occurred sooner if we hadn't packaged KDE at all, or an equivalent example. I have not made that claim; I don't know why I should have to prove it. I see a lot of people saying that placing things in non-free was the cause of getting the license changed. I'm unconvinced that this is true and that the real cause is not simply exclusion from main. I made no claims about timeframe. -- John
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3; that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. The lack of evidence is due to the fact that (almost) no one else has seen debootstrap 0.3, so there hasn't been any opportunity to file bug reports about it; not that there aren't any bugs. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. That's Occam's razor, which says you should draw the conclusion that requires the least on assumptions for which there's no evidence. (There's no unicorn requires no assumptions; There is a unicorn requires the assumption that it hides whenever you try looking for it, that it's always very quiet, and that it hid when you tried hooking up the flashlight and webcam...) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. It's just not conclusive evidence. I think that may be an irrational view. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. Not for long. The bunny would eat it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3; that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. It's totally inadequate evidence, but nevertheless it's evidence. The lack of evidence is due to the fact that (almost) no one else has seen debootstrap 0.3, so there hasn't been any opportunity to file bug reports about it; not that there aren't any bugs. And after many years of experience with software we expect that all software of any complexity has bugs, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This is complicated by the fuzziness of the concept of bug. But this is also a matter of degree -- if there's no evidence after one person searches for one hour, that means less than if there's no evidence after a thousand people search for five years. [And if we know something about the capabilities of those people that knowledge adds to the evidence.] If Sven has spent a lot of time attempting to find DFSG free adsl support software for a specific card, and has contacted the manufacturer and even the manufacturer of that card is not able find such software, that's a different kind of evidence than no bug reports being filed on a newly released piece of software. This is not to say that such software will never exist. It does not prove that such software does not currently exists. It is, however evidence that it does not exist. However, I think the point is that evidence isn't proof. Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer. That's Occam's razor, which says you should draw the conclusion that requires the least on assumptions for which there's no evidence. (There's no unicorn requires no assumptions; There is a unicorn requires the assumption that it hides whenever you try looking for it, that it's always very quiet, and that it hid when you tried hooking up the flashlight and webcam...) Occam's razor is another set of words for talking about the absence of evidence. -- Raul
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you are not telepathic). Unfalsifiable statements have no utility as premises for a practical argument (as opposed to a formal one), because their truth cannot be determined. Practical arguments require not only that their reasoning be cogent and valid, but that their premises are factual. they like to pretend that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free, that source-code isn't available. This statement is without foundation. Cite evidence of an advocate of removing non-free misrepresenting the availability of source code. Moreover, since I advocate the resolution, and since I know that source code is available for the packages in non-free in many (but not all) cases, your argument (One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common) commits the fallacy of composition[1]. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth value of an unfalsifiable statement, or of a fallacious statement that is without foundation, is indeterminate, and not of utility in practical reasoning -- consequently this statement is null. while there are a handful of packages in non-free that don't have complete or usable source code, While imprecise (I'll assume a handful is something less than 50%), this statement is not particularly objectionable apart from its lack of foundation (you have not enumerated which packages in non-free have incomplete or unusable source code). and even fewer that don't have any source code, Again, lacks foundation, but not otherwise objectionable. the vast majority of software in non-free is there because the license doesn't quite meet the requirements of the DFSG, Actually, by definition, *all* of the software in non-free is there because the applicable licenses don't meet the requirements of the DFSG.[2] just as much GNU documentation does not quite meet the requirements of the DFSG. Indeed; once a distinguishing criterion is defined, that some things satisfy it and others don't is a truism. Your second paragraph does not appear to raise any points under contention. The majority of programs in non-free come with source code and allow the user to modify and use it as they like. Again, lacks foundation, but not otherwise objectionable. However, some prohibit commercial exploitation or sale, some prohibit distribution of modified versions, some prohibit use by government agencies, some allow free use only for educational or private purposes. You cite no examples (and thus provide no foundation), but it is true that all of these are ways to fail the DFSG. some of it is affected by software patents, so it is free in certain countries but non-free in others. You cite no examples (and thus provide no foundation), but it is true that the presence of a patent on software that is incompatible with the DFSG renders the software unable to be legally or non-tortiously used in conjunction with all of the freedoms under the DFSG. In short, almost all of the software is almost-free or (using RMS' terminology) semi-free software. I take it your definition of almost-free is as follows: prohibits commercial exploitation or sale; prohibits distribution of modified versions; prohibits use by government agencies; prohibits use for non-educational or non-private purposes; or is restricted in any way by patents. Debian doesn't distinguish between the types of non-free... That is apparently true. I know of no nontechnical position statement issued by the Project that attempts distinguish among varieties of non-freeness and by whose definitions anyone is bound. whether it is non-free because it is proprietary What is your definition of proprietary? Some would define it as prohibits commercial exploitation or sale; prohibits distribution of modified versions; prohibits use by government agencies; prohibits use for non-educational or non-private purposes; or is restricted in any way by patents, among other restrictions. Because you offer no definition for this term it is difficult to understand how you use it as foundation for further argument. or non-free because use by spammers is prohibited, it is treated the same: if we can distribute it at all, it can go in non-free. It does seem to be the case that any package which is not DFSG but still distributable, at least in certain countries where prominent Debian mirrors reside, can be distributed in the non-free section. if we can't distribute it under any circumstances, then we can ignore it. More precisely, if we cannot legally or non-tortiously distribute it under any circumstances, then we endeavor not to do so. Aside from the convenience for our users, this has also been useful in motivating
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] Dear PedantBot 2004TM, Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. craig ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly tedious minor points that last year's version would have completely missed. kudos to your programmers.
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods, but you did make a number of mistakes, and this as a response falls incredibly flat. If you're not going to acknowledge your mistakes, just leave them be, focus on the important issues, and try and accomplish something positive. You could have taken Branden's criticism as constructive, and an opportunity to highlight the parts of what you had to say that were worthwhile. Instead, your post was so disappointing that I wound up choosing to waste everyone's time with this personal comment. -- Raul
Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3; that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. It's totally inadequate evidence, but nevertheless it's evidence. I don't think it's possible to have evidence for something that's false, although it's certainly possible to mistakenly think something is evidence for something it's not. But this is also a matter of degree -- if there's no evidence after one person searches for one hour, that means less than if there's no evidence after a thousand people search for five years. It depends if they're looking over the same ground with the same tools. If Sven has spent a lot of time attempting to find DFSG free adsl support software for a specific card, and has contacted the manufacturer and even the manufacturer of that card is not able find such software, that's a different kind of evidence than no bug reports being filed on a newly released piece of software. This isn't absence of evidence, it's written and spoken testimony that people aren't aware of something -- ie, you've got people actually saying no, I don't know of any such thing, rather than just a lack of people saying yes, look over here. Occam's razor is another set of words for talking about the absence of evidence. Occam's razor gives you the ability to draw some conclusions in the absence of evidence. It doesn't let you make use of the absence of evidence to make positive claims. (And in particular, it requires some evidence in order to make the alternative more complicated to explain. You need someone to have looked in the sock draw, and not to have found a mini unicorn, eg.) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about. Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods, but you did make a number of mistakes, you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples. at most, i made a few small exaggerations and used a few 'poetic' turns of phrase - but AFAIK, no actual mistakes. and this as a response falls incredibly flat. you mean you really think his quibbling over words was worth the time it took to read? it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point. If you're not going to acknowledge your mistakes, just leave them be, focus on the important issues, and try and accomplish something positive. please point them out and i'll evaluate whether they are worth 'acknowledging'. You could have taken Branden's criticism as constructive, and an his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster. quibbling about words is not useful criticism. paraphrasing and sometimes distorting what i said and then declaring tautology! i win! really isn't a very productive style, either. if he had anything relevant to say, he would have engaged with the substance rather than quibbling over the precise definitions of words - words which he knows as well as i, in the context of the free software dialogue that has been occuring over the last decade or so. anyone in the free software world knows what 'proprietary' means, and most people with access to a dictionary do too and can figure out what it means in the context of free software. as should have been obvious to anyone with more than one or two neurons, i was specifically referring to binary-only software that is not free in any sense of the word except perhaps dollar cost. 'non-free' means 'non-free according to the DFSG' - the only definition that matters to debian developers. 'semi-free' or 'almost-free' means software that ALMOST meets the criteria of the DFSG but fails on ONLY one or two points - i.e. most of the software in the debian non-free archive. the term 'semi-free' at least is also defined on the FSF site, although the FSF definition wrongly emphasises the selfish prohibition of profit as the defining criteria when there are often other criteria (such as no use by DoD or other government depts, or use only by schools etc). opportunity to highlight the parts of what you had to say that were worthwhile. Instead, your post was so disappointing that I wound up choosing to waste everyone's time with this personal comment. well, if you want to waste your time trying to make yourself look fair and balanced over garbage like this then go right ahead. personally, i think there have been far better arguments produced by the get-rid-of-non-free bigots than this kind of trivial quibbling. craig
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:45:34AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:01:53AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: You have upto now simply refused to give specific examples, and didn't respond to me when i cited 3 cases i am concerned about, and which show well the actual status of non-free software. Yes, strangely enough I don't feel compelled to convince you. Oh. Ok, i expect any vote which will finally be called about your GRs will fail by a huge amount then. Also it seems that none of them have acquired the required numbers of seconds anyway, so ... Also, you speak of freedom When, precisely, have I done that? you speak about non-free software, is that not something related to Freedom ? I call bullshit. I have done no such thing. Please, stay polite. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:50:37PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Not with respect to the porting, I agree. Concerning the merely building of the binary .deb files... the maintainer only needs how to login on a remote debian system and how to invoke dpkg-buildpackage - That is not always the case. If the machine in question doesn't have the packages necessary to satisfy your build-deps, you're SOL. Not only that, but very, very few maintainers of non-free software actually do that. Well, you ask the debian-admin team, and they kindly install the packages you need, with a small delay. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:51:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where not even the manufacturer of the hardware has the source for. [...] The discussion on -legal about this starts with http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00076.html Yeah, the discussion was of varying quality, with some good stuff, and some dispute over wether binary kernel modules are allowed or not. There seemed to be a few not sure comments along the way. It may be worth asking -legal again, including whether it is possible to package the non-softlib part in contrib? Other interesting things would be But the plan is to remove contrib anyway, no ? trying to find someone who can produce a free software alternative (reverse engineering perhaps?), and what [EMAIL PROTECTED] has to say about this case and whether any of it can be free software. Well, sure. The only problem with that, is that i am told that only a handfull of people worldwide understand this ADSL stuff needed for writing such a free replacement, and they are probably getting paid huge loads of money by the telecom companies, so i doubt we will find someone willing or capable of doing this work. In a few years perhaps, this would be different. Also you have to regard the investment needed to do such a thing, and if it would not be better to take this investment in other directions where more can be done easier for now, and live with the non-free ADSL library, even if it is a pain for me which want to run my PCI modem on my powerpc box and can not. That said, i may write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], what should i ask them ? Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this soft-ADSL library ? Anyway, i as debian devel want to be free to use the debian infrastructure to distribute this driver, and the use of the BTS to communicate with my users, which find the the package usefull, even if it is not in main. Why do you want to use debian mirrors and BTS? If there is good Because it is there that i conduct my debian work, i am used to it, it is easy to access all my packages in the same way quickly, and it is the tool for the job. support for using another donated infrastructure, would that suffice? If there is, maybe. I doubt there is right now, and i doubt the work needed to make this happen in a satisfactory way is worth it. So, the aim of this whole discussion is about what kind of work can be done inside of debian. These people with their non-free GR, apart from loosing everyone's time, are trying to impose on me what i can work on inside of debian, without even bothering to look at the issues in detail, and answering arguments made against their case. I guess some of the contributors may not even be debian devels. The question is fairly basic, I agree. Why should work which doesn't help to develop a free software operating system be done inside the debian project? Do we already impose on people what can be distributed as part of debian by using the DFSG? I think you are mostly wrong about without even bothering to look at the issues in detail. Many of the participants here (with a range of Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail. I have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the let's remove non-free camp has responded on them. viewpoints) are active on -legal and look at these sorts of issues frequently. Maybe some of us have missed issues about ceasing non-free support which you should point out, or maybe you consider them with different importance. Yeah. Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i guess you understand). This will result in a less free main, and maybe even in dishonesty about some reasons for packages to be removed from main because of non-freeness that their maintainers would be less prompt to reveal if they discovered it and other such case. Not to speak the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is going to happen. I believe that removing non-free from debian infrastructure will be counter-productive and a detriment to our users (of which we developers are the first ones). You don't have only to look at the short time goal of not having the non-free on debian servers, or at least not visibly, but forget the long term goal of providing a free operating system of quality to our users, and in general hinder the progress of free software in general. non-free but almost free software should be considered as needing help to be moved toward freedom, not anathemized and being thrown away. Many free software of today started
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Sven Luther wrote: (One cannot start projects for non-free stuff on Sourceforge, of course, but somebody could setup a similar service for www.nonfree.org. Asking the Alioth admins how difficult that would be might be a good first step) Sourceforge is evil and non-free anyway, so we should use savannah ... wait, not possible, savannah will not accept non-free stuff, hum ... apt-get install gforge, Roland Mas worked hard improving the packages that run on the alioth system. You can create your own installation without too much hassle, I guess. Regards, Joey -- Life is a lot easier when you have someone to share it with. -- Sean Perry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:50:46AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Sven Luther wrote: (One cannot start projects for non-free stuff on Sourceforge, of course, but somebody could setup a similar service for www.nonfree.org. Asking the Alioth admins how difficult that would be might be a good first step) Sourceforge is evil and non-free anyway, so we should use savannah ... wait, not possible, savannah will not accept non-free stuff, hum ... apt-get install gforge, Roland Mas worked hard improving the packages that run on the alioth system. You can create your own installation without too much hassle, I guess. That's exactly what I had in mind. It thought it was clear in my earlier post already, sorry. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:12:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I don't find such assertions to be very convincing. I bet you have a fit whenever you read a dictionary. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote: then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation, If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. and we must stop distributing any GNU software that is distributed *WITH* non-free documentation. That does not follow. We can distribute their software without the documentation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] As Craig said, the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence changes. Can you give a reference for that, or are you making up Craig's views? He seems to get quite upset about that. As far as I can tell, he only ack'd that they were fixed in part due to being moved to non-free. I doubt that the mere presence in non-free does much in and of itself and the dialogue with the upstream and others is more important. b.) Potentially, merge contrib into main: the packages within contrib are, by their nature, DFSG free but may need non-DFSG software to build, for example. Only things which can work without non-free should do this, IMO. I think that's the current situation, based on what people have written to me this week. c.) Document that fact in the relevant package descriptions. Don't recommend non-DFSG in apt/deselect - which removes one of rms's problems - Are you sure? I think that he considers our support for it more of a problem than the control fields. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:26:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [0] But what the hell. His aside was basically You're an idiot, therefore you're usually wrong; which isn't a fallacy, presuming being usually wrong is the defining property of being an idiot. The fallacy comes when you generalise from the average case (usually wrong), to the specific (wrong in this particular instance), which wasn't the case here: we went straight from the general case to the specific case with no claim of connection at all. Well, except that all of this was in a single paragraph which, according to usual rules of written english, is an indication that the statements are connected. Either that, or bad writing. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-07 14:10:52 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either that, or bad writing. You are black, Pot. -- Kettle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
Hi Sven, On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages That is only a problem for non-free or contrib packages that are not well maintained. So let's kick out of non-free (and contrib) all packages of bad quality and be done with it. Probably nobody will complain about those anyway, and if they do, they should start fixing the quality issues. That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. this is something that could be improved more *outside* Debian than within it. If we cannot distribute and support software in a quality fashion, we should not do so at all. I trust debian, i may not trust a random outside source. And then, there is the question of the BTS. But you may trust another source, too. Debian does not have a monopoly on trust. Debian also does not have a monopoly on BTS systems. Reportbug is already aware of this. From /usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers: Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control. Send-To: bugs.myproject.com `bug' will add `submit@' `quiet@' or `maintonly@' to form the address the bug report mail is send to. (Note: you probably should use dpkg's support for Origin and Bugs tags in lieu of this support.) Mmm, if we really would want to be ethical, then we should not distribute software that is allowed to be used for commiting non-ethical things, mass murder and other such stuff for example. Come to think of I think it's rather far-fetched to claim that an operating system is usable as a tool for mass murder. However, it is true that one could use Debian for good or bad. There are different ways to evaluate the ethics in such a situation. Philosophers write volumes upon the topic. One way is utilitarianism, which I used in my paper Ethics of Free Software [1], written back in 1998. One definition of utilitarianism is: Everyone ought to act so as to bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Some modern philosophers throw probability into the mix as well, so as you evaluate each individual outcome, you also consider the probability of it occuring. That is, in abstract, utilitarianism can be thought of roughly as: ethics = happiness * people * probability Where, of course, happiness could be positive or negative, and probability is the likelihood that the specific action you're investigating will occur. When we look at Debian, we can readily see the great utility that it has for so many people. We can also realize that there are instances of unhappiness caused by Debian, such as spammers or crackers that use our operating system. Yet, on balance, I think it is pretty obvious that there has been far more good than ill come from our OS. it, we are already bared to distribute our software to some countries. Sure, this is a restriction of the US governement, but why should we limit our freedom in distributing software because of a governement most of its citizen didn't vote for, and who is not recognized by most of the debian developers. Because it is convenient to host our debian servers on US territory ? To be sure, this restriction is more of one on paper than one that is practically enforced; indeed, it is really impossible to enforce, and as far as I am aware, we do not enforce it. We also maintain mirrors in countries that do not have those restrictions. Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on its own, without the crutch of non-free. It can already, where is the problem. If that is the case, then there should be no problem with removing non-free. there is a huge difference between almost-free software and proprietary software. If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only, that difference is practically non-existant. Well, this is again an ethical question. If you are a business, and are making money of said software, then you can pay whatever you like for the non-free stuff if you want to use it, be it a post card, a friendly mail, or some real money to support the developer. Or you can contribute to developing a free alternative. Just because you are a business doesn't mean that you have lots of money to spare. For instance, someone that works part-time from home may not be in a position to support these things. Also, it is not necessarily possible to buy rights to non-free software, or it may be prohibitively expensive; or the original developers may be unreachable. [1] http://www.complete.org/publications/fsethics/ -- To
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote: then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation, On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. Note that debian-private also does not meet DFSG, and is not guaranteed by the social contract. If the only point here is that debian resources shouldn't be used to distribute non-DFSG stuff we should place getting rid of debian-private at a higher level of priority than non-free. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] As Craig said, the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence changes. Can you give a reference for that, smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel compiler (and is now in main). -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.Matthew 5:8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:17:17 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:58:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a business) it is actually less free than something without source (such as Netscape 4.7). The no discrimination clause in DFSG is an important one. Debian must be equally Free for all. Why must it? We have an area that's free for all: it's called main. We have another area that contains stuff that's not free for all, but that is useful and that we're allowed to distribute. If you don't like the non-free stuff, then don't use it and don't maintain it. Why do you find that solution so unacceptable that you think Debian *must* do something else? As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of our stated goals, users and free software. I beg to differ. Indeed, the very reason for having non-free is because the software performs a function that is useful to users, despite no meeting our guidelines. And it helps free software two fold: it a helps in transitioning packages to free-er licenses (ncftp, qt, etc), and it gets us a wider audience (people who would have not chosen Debian without the support for the non-free stuff). Once in the fold, they are exposed to the ideas of free software, they espouse, and proselytize, Debian. Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense their software under the GPL; it seems that the areas that we have been successful already are testament to what we have the potential to do were we to carry an even larger carrot and stick. I kinda doubt that. Debian is does not carry that big a stick, and the drop software from Debian is not as big a stick as Debian labels software as non-free. Everyone knows that Debian can't package all software there is out there, so absence of the software reflects on the incompleteness of Debian to the casual end user; having the software labelled as non-free reflects on the software package. We are now long past the era where technical hurdles prevented spinning non-free off of Debian. We have a set of people that are capable of maintaining it by itself. We also have a situation where Got anything to back this up? Who are these people? Do they have the resources you say they are capable of marshalling? manoj -- You will remember something that you should not have forgotten. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote: then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation, If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. Heh. You do not see the contradiction in these two statements? manoj -- You know it's Monday when you wake up and it's Tuesday. Garfield 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 02:42:47 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional. This is ad hominem. At no point did I suggest that he was wrong because of who he is. I suggested that talking to him is a bad idea because of who he is. That's not an ad hominem argument - it's not even an argument. It's a perfectly normal insult. I further noted that he was wrong, and felt no need to offer a detailed rebuttal, since any intelligent reader should be able to think it through for themselves, given a hint. Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in this debate than you are. manoj -- ... they [the Indians] are not running but are coming on. note sent from Lt. Col Custer to other officers of the 7th Regiment at the Little Bighorn 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: [...] As Craig said, the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence changes. Can you give a reference for that, smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel compiler (and is now in main). If RMS negotiated it becoming GNU Eiffel, I doubt it was the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself did much to make the change. Probably less than normal, even. I think human dialogue has to be given nearly all the credit for licence changes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
