On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in > > section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers. > > non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called > > debian/main. > > But you have also referred to non-free as part of Debian.
As part of the debian infrastructure and also at least partially, of the debian project, but not of the debian distribution. > > Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to > > be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible > > by a non-free.org DNS magic? > > No. That would be an improvement, but it would not be enough. There > is also the BTS, and the reporting of it on the web pages which tie it > closely to the distribution, etc. Ok. > > This would cause the less burden to our ressources (ressources as in > > volunteer time donation, what other ressource do we have), while > > achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so important to you of not > > having non-free programs visibly related to the debian project. If > > not, could you please come up with a sane rationale on why not ? > > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as > a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you > wouldn't be complaining so much. Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of non-free will be real though, and a real pain. If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to achieve that. > > Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move > > non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the > > same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual > > non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by > > strengthening free alternatives ? > > These are not alternatives. Both are important. Distributing > non-free does nothing to help either. Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it. > > And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal > > proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which > > may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org > > archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an > > external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution > > (also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over. > > Puhleez. > > > Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and > > do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the > > individual hardware components of your computer ? > > Those hardware components, and the BIOS, are not part of Debian. My > goal was never to make Debian run without any non-free software in the > room. It's to make Debian 100% Free Software. Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes. > > And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave > > you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not > > be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in > > non-free you have no use for ? > > If you want to provide easy access, go to it. And you want to pull it from me. Friendly, Sven Luther
