Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:20:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Indeed, one of the faculty here at UCI, Aldo Antonelli is a die-hard member of the Free Software community. When I told him about Debian's commitment to the principles free software he immediately decided to switch his computers from Red Hat to Debian. Of course you realize, this sort of anecdote is not welcome in the discussion. :-P Hehe. I should point out that I meant to say in that message that Aldo is not a computer jock; he's a professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science, not a hacker of any sort, but a rather niftily smart logician.
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Am 02:12 2002-11-25 -0800 hat Adam McKenna geschrieben: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:34:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: But I do not use contrib or non-free. Nobody had ask for non-free and contrib if I burn CD's for some one... An important data point, I'd think... Yes, someone write that down. Michelle in Strabourg doesn't need non-free. Anecdotal evidence is so much more compelling when it supports your cause, eh? I think, supporting (distributing) of non-free ist waste of bandwidth and money... and the same for contrib... Does the Enterprises/Developpers of non-free sponsor Debian or the FSF ? The only Package I use from non-free is pcnfsd because my dos-client ;-) Michelle
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:21:41PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: I think, supporting (distributing) of non-free ist waste of bandwidth and money... and the same for contrib... i think the bandwidth taken and disk space taken up by non-free is exceptionally small compared to main. i haven't been fully following this thread, but it seems the question is more of an ideological one with regards to the DFSG and the social contract, though personally i think it's rather moot because iirc non-free already isn't part of debian, it's just a convenience offered by debian and some generous dd's. also, how is it a waste of money, apart from bandwidth? sean pgpR8vXOXYB1S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:27:22PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:20:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: That's a recursive definition. The way things are now is our current social contract, so you are saying The way things are now is consistent with the way things are now. I suppose that could be taken as an axiom, but I don't see any useful benefit to it :-) I'm aware that the definition is somewhat tautological. But my opinion remains that our users are currently better served by the status quo than what you are proposing. Ahh but John is not working in the interests of our users but rather a higher body known as the Free Software Community. It is not known whether any actual Debian user is a member of that group at this time (the answer to THAT question when asked was just as obtuse). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ahh but John is not working in the interests of our users but rather a higher body known as the Free Software Community. It is not known whether any actual Debian user is a member of that group at this time (the answer to THAT question when asked was just as obtuse). I'm a member of that group. Indeed, one of the faculty here at UCI, Aldo Antonelli is a die-hard member of the Free Software community. When I told him about Debian's commitment to the principles free software he immediately decided to switch his computers from Red Hat to Debian.
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the
desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the
motivation). Is this your position?
There is not necessarily anything wrong with it. However, I cannot find
Preserve the Way Things Are Now in Debian's list of committments in
its Social Contract with the Free Software Community.
No, but the subject of debate is clearly called out in that document.
At this point in time I don't see any gain to keeping, or removing
non-free. In the past I saw this as an example of what we considered
non-free (I mean, get a grip. Whatever is there is freely available in
lots of other places on the net. It is the DFSG alone that declares such
software anathema. {and then takes it all back in the non-free clause...})
Of all the things that confuse me, this was not one of them, although I
understand some folks confusion. We have a definition of Software
Freedom in the DFSG, and example code for what constitutes non-free in
the designated section called out in that very same document. Makes sense
to me, but offends the sensabilities of others.
So someone feels unfulfilled no matter which way the decission turns.
Maybe we should all give up and go back to working on software ;-)
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:20:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Indeed, one of the faculty here at UCI, Aldo Antonelli is a die-hard member of the Free Software community. When I told him about Debian's commitment to the principles free software he immediately decided to switch his computers from Red Hat to Debian. Of course you realize, this sort of anecdote is not welcome in the discussion. :-P -- G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness. It is Debian GNU/Linux |a growing closer. It beats the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |hell out of card games. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Robert Heinlein pgpAf4QV9oASr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:22:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:30:31PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:47:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: This certainly flies in the face of the common argument that Free Software only chases taillights. Careful. That's a *Microsoft* argument. I didn't say I agreed with it. I'm simply trying to figure out what the GR-opposition party stands for. Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than preserving the status quo? _YOU_ (the GR-proponent party) are the ones who want change; it is up to _YOU_ to convince the rest of us why the change is beneficial. --Adam
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:34:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: But I do not use contrib or non-free. Nobody had ask for non-free and contrib if I burn CD's for some one... An important data point, I'd think... Yes, someone write that down. Michelle in Strabourg doesn't need non-free. Anecdotal evidence is so much more compelling when it supports your cause, eh? --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than preserving the status quo? Thanks for clarifying that. -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpu8GbKcAI1w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:12:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:34:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: But I do not use contrib or non-free. Nobody had ask for non-free and contrib if I burn CD's for some one... An important data point, I'd think... Yes, someone write that down. Michelle in Strabourg doesn't need non-free. Anecdotal evidence is so much more compelling when it supports your cause, eh? I'd argue that we don't need any anecdotal evidence at all, whether in support of or in opposition to the premise that Debian must distribute non-free software for the benefit of our users. But some opponents of the proposed GR insist that Debian not cease distributing non-free software without the consent of our users, in which case we are dependent on anecdotes, since we have no user registry. -- G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell. pgpGHw4DDn2NW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than preserving the status quo? Thanks for clarifying that. Your wit is razor sharp as usual, Branden. What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the motivation). Is this your position? --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than preserving the status quo? Thanks for clarifying that. Your wit is razor sharp as usual, Branden. I guess you're being sarcastic, because I was being sincere. What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the motivation). Is this your position? There is not necessarily anything wrong with it. However, I cannot find Preserve the Way Things Are Now in Debian's list of committments in its Social Contract with the Free Software Community. -- G. Branden Robinson|You should try building some of the Debian GNU/Linux |stuff in main that is [EMAIL PROTECTED] |modern...turning on -Wall is like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |turning on the pain. -- James Troup pgp9BVvXH2167.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:19:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than preserving the status quo? Thanks for clarifying that. Your wit is razor sharp as usual, Branden. I guess you're being sarcastic, because I was being sincere. What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the motivation). Is this your position? There is not necessarily anything wrong with it. However, I cannot find Preserve the Way Things Are Now in Debian's list of committments in its Social Contract with the Free Software Community. Perhaps some of us feel that The Way Things Are Now is consistent with our Social Contract and our list of committments, and changing that would be violating that Contract and those committments. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Thanks for clarifying that. Your wit is razor sharp as usual, Branden. What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the motivation). Is this your position? I'm not speaking for Branden, but I don't think that keeping things the way they are for its own sake is a compelling argument. The status quo is rooted in odd compromises of 1997, not relevant today. I don't believe that there is any reason to insist that it must always be as it was in 1997. Let's talk about the two options -- the 1997 draft and the 2002 draft -- on their merits. -- John
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:42:39PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Perhaps some of us feel that The Way Things Are Now is consistent with our Social Contract and our list of committments, and changing that would be violating that Contract and those committments. That's a recursive definition. The way things are now is our current social contract, so you are saying The way things are now is consistent with the way things are now. I suppose that could be taken as an axiom, but I don't see any useful benefit to it :-) -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 0x8A1D9A1Fwww.complete.org Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics,' respond those who don't want to learn.
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:20:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:42:39PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: Perhaps some of us feel that The Way Things Are Now is consistent with our Social Contract and our list of committments, and changing that would be violating that Contract and those committments. That's a recursive definition. The way things are now is our current social contract, so you are saying The way things are now is consistent with the way things are now. I suppose that could be taken as an axiom, but I don't see any useful benefit to it :-) I'm aware that the definition is somewhat tautological. But my opinion remains that our users are currently better served by the status quo than what you are proposing. But, as someone else said, this discussion is getting old. I was away for about a week so I didn't get a chance to participate in the tail end of it. I'd rather just let the matter rest and let it go to vote. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:27:22PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: I'm aware that the definition is somewhat tautological. But my opinion remains that our users are currently better served by the status quo than what you are proposing. Do you consider the status quo to be the ideal situation? If not, what do you think should be done to fix it? If so, why? But, as someone else said, this discussion is getting old. I was away for about a week so I didn't get a chance to participate in the tail end of it. I'd rather just let the matter rest and let it go to vote. We are currently waiting for the discussion in -vote to resolve our voting methods. After that, I intend to call for votes. -- John
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Branden Robinson writes (Re: Discussion - non-free software removal): While we're on the subject, can you tell us whether or not the Social Contract was specifically one of the documents you had in mind when you wrote clause 4.1.5 of the Debian Constituion? Could you answer the same question about the DFSG? Sorry about the delay replying, it's been chaos at work and I've not had much time ... Yes, the Social Contract and DFSG were exactly those kind of things. You may recall that in the latter part of my term as leader, I proposed a rewrite of the DFSG. At the time, no-one suggested that a supermajority would be required to pass it. (The actual proposal died of general lack of support.) Ian.
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:36:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: Because, at the time that we wrote it, non-free (in particular: PGP, ssh, Netscape, IIRC) was a much more important part of Debian than it is now. Those three sets of packages went from receiving extreme amounts of attention to being relegated to the junkpile. Why do you think that is? Because you evil bigoted zealots *KILLED* them! How did this killing happen? Certainly not by denying them space on Debian's servers. In fact, Mozilla killed Netscape because Netscape, Inc. got slammed by Microsoft in a denial of OS support play similar in some ways to what the GR proposes to do: make a partially incompatible version, then yank the carpet out from under the original. I once said that there was a special spot in Hell for the people who remove non-free: I guess that Hell in this case truly IS Redmond, WA. You bastards! /South Park -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
How did this killing happen? Certainly not by denying them space on Debian's servers. In fact, Mozilla killed Netscape because Netscape, Poor John Galt is fooled by Branden into thinking that Netscape is dead.
