On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:14:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Hello, > > I don't know if you are aware of that, but a discussion has been raging > on debian-vote about the removal of non-free from our archive, our BTS, > and so on. > > I have been involved in it (even proposed a GR ammendment, altough it > was a bit 'bancal'), and also since i am involved with non-free as DD (i > maintain the unicorn ADSL modem drivers) and as user (i need lha, but > also also because of ocaml-doc and ocaml-books). > > Since the debian-ocaml team is involved with 3 packages in non-free, i > would like to hear about your/our position on this issue (well, and > eventually second the anti-non-free removal if you feel like this). I > have also sent a small mention about this to the caml team this morning, > in marge of an email concerning the bug report : > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227159 > > About a QPLed caml-types.el from Damien Doligez. The debian-legal > response to my request on this bug report has been less than thrilling > (basically arguig that it would be polite to RMS not to distribute > non-GPL compatible .el files :/). > > So, what is our position on this, both individually and as a group ? > > Friendly, > > Sven Luther >
Hello, Well, it is quite heavy as discussion. I think non-free is needed for a lot of us ( as user and as DD ). In fact, since i have seen this discussion about GFDL and documentation in general, i can't stop thinking that is really a loose of time. I can't understand the position about removing non-free. I was thinking that it was in social contract. Removing non-free is non sense. I have seen in debian-devel a thread about "top 5 things you want in debian". All is about : mplayer, java... All non-free. To my mind, if we remove non-free, we will loose a great number of user... Because if non-free exists that's because free alternatives are not mature enough. To my mind, it is mainly a question of "integrism". A certain part of the DD want to have a "100% free" distribution. I don't think it is a good way of thinking... Our first aims is to provide -- all -- user a good distribution. If all free alternatives were as functional as non-free, i would not argue so. Last but not least : regarding the progress of GFDL issue, if we remove non-free we will have a "100% documentation less" distribution. It is ridiculous. We will have software but no documentation... We will loose ocaml-doc and a lot more. My position : keep non-free, stop the GFDL mess ( invariant in documentation seems normal to me... ). Concerning the .el... As usual, we have the opinion of a "100% free" supporter ( ie RMS ). I don't think it is a good position neither. To my mind freedom, is also the choice of upstream to choose their licence... ( you know : "free speech / free beer" ) I hope debian will not become : Debian "GNU only/Mach" ( after all, Linux is not free -- from SCO point of view ;-) ). Kind regard Sylvain LE GALL
