Re: We *can* be Free-only
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I believe that Debian can be the world's first large-scale Free-only operating system project. I believe it already is. non-free part of our archive. Imagine, then, how much greator those effects would be by completely banning that software from our project until it gets a Free license! There's no evidence that this is true. Some users who require non-free software to use their computer in their own language or to support their hardware will simply switch to Red Hat, Mandrake or some other distribution which doesn't care so much about the DFSG. Then we've lost any chance to convince them of the benefits of DFSG-free software. I don't think we are likely to pick up any additional users because we stop distributing non-free software. Where would those users come from? They don't have a more-free system they can use now. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free Software and then eventually see Oh, there's this non-free stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there. I think that with the old non-free question, most people installing Debian (the vast majority even) select yes to non-free, even if there is nothing in non-free that they want (or know they want) and then end up installing non-free software that was listed in their cache or showed up in a default search on the website when perhaps they would have been just as happy with a free replacement. I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a way that its easy for users that really want non-free software but not so easy that people instinctively choose it en mass is a good gaol One benefit is that it all ends up being a lot less controversial than the sorts of proposals that spawn this thread. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On 2004-01-07 04:18:38 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i is the time saved by not having to worry about non-free stuff. I expect that's pretty small, but non-zero. n is the time taken trying to maintain software with poorer infrastructure than Debian has. X is the time taken maintaining that infrastructure b is the extra time people devote to Debian because of our righteous stand; it's negative if time's lost. b = i - (n+X) I'm not sure that b can be expressed so neatly. At the very least, you could also have D, the developer time currently not given to debian because of non-free but not spent on non-free, and against that there is d, the developer time currently given to debian by developers who quit over this. They may both be sizeable, for all we know just now. You also seem to dismiss the possibility that external infrastructures could outperform Debian in the limit, which would make n negative eventually. There are probably other variables we missed. I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to setup a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X isn't trivially small. It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make that effort much more than a folly if this vote doesn't succeed. I can't blame people for not wanting to build follies. -- 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]
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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-07 14:11:05 + Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. The web of trust issue. The web of trust can probably be extended through some signing of external package providers and a web of trust being established between them. That extends the general web of trust, which may be a good thing. Would it count as support for non-free? I don't think so. [...] encouraging the free Java SDKs to become better so that Eclipse, et alia, can move to main is a more important goal than dropping support for Eclipse, etc. It sounds that this is near, for at least some. Will you work with debian-java and the package maintainers to help it happen? -- 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: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote: No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example [...] On 2004-01-07 18:30:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I'd rather you faced this fear than make everyone else help you avoid it. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:18:18PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Personally, I do not plan to face pointless exchanges, so I'll avoid it and not reply further to your message. There are other ways of avoiding pointless exchanges than changing Debian's social contract. For example, in your hypothetical exchange you could have started out by asking What is it about A that you consider important? And, possibly What packages have you already eliminated as alternatives to A, and why? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-08 13:25:56 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt anyone with a package in contrib wants to keep it there, no matter what their position on non-free is. Having no packages that're worth maintaining in contrib would be a strong argument that non-free software isn't necessary anymore, IMO. Looking at contrib, I see the following major groups: 1. Java programs. It seems that work is happening to make some depend on free java-like systems, but more help would be welcome. 2. Emulators. They're mostly contrib because their ROMs are non-free. Difficult to move. There are some which looked moveable, but I've not checked in detail. 3. Enhancements and front-ends for non-free software. qmail scripts, for example. I think most already have replacements in main. Are there ones which aren't redundant? Could they be ported to software in main? 4. Free software data files for non-free software. Do these really depend on non-free? I guess they may be pretty uninteresting without it. 5. Installers for non-free software. I can't see how these can ever vanish unless their maintainer accepts that an alternative exists in main and it dies that way. 6. Free software with non-free essential data. More general case of 2 which probably needs upstream convincing or the data replacing with some under a free software licence. 7. Free software using a non-free essential library. Probably a more general case of 1, which needs it porting to use a different library, or that library part made optional and disabled in the debian build. I was surprised there were so few of these that aren't java. I actually stepped through a 30% section of the contrib list and then did a sample of the remainder, so I may have missed a class or more. Can you spot it? I think there are 254 packages in contrib (grep -c '^Package: ' Packages). If we want to reduce the size of contrib, I suggest classifying these and doing something similar to my previously posted plan for reducing the size of non-free. Is anyone interested in doing this? -- 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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:11:40 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. Someone thought it important enough to sp[end time tracking down the sources, packaging it to follow Debian policy, and follow and fix bug reports. It is not the case that all those things are true for everything in non-free. It's not even true for everything in main. [No, I'm not going to try to demonstrate anything further than that - merely that there is reasonable justification for dissent from your personal opinion. I will however point out that if non-free contained only angband and tome, I would say we should dump it.] Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when this is all moot anyway). Y'see, that's the reason why I'm trying to avoid this part of the discussion. You have implied I meant something other than what I said, and thrown in an assertion that anybody who does not agree with you is a zealot (which may be technically correct [One who holds a strong opinion which you do not entertain], but which you imply has negative connotations [which is a pretty narrow reading of the dictionary]). It's exactly like trying to discuss a security hole with an upstream author who calls you a hacker all the time (in every respect I can think of). If there were evidence of the existence of other significant opinions, sure, we could write them into the ballot. If any appear, we still can. But there hasn't been, and I don't buy the silent majority theory, since it's almost impossible to get Debian developers to shut up at the best of times. If you are unwilling to discuss issues, how can other nascent opinions develop? I don't believe that it is necessary for people to talk to *me* before they can form opinions about things. So butt out. I've been trying to do exactly that, for the subthreads that go down those lines. You may wish to review your own mails to which I was replying (which were mostly filled with inaccurate assertions about my personal motivation and intent, rather than any kind of discussion of the issues). I like to keep my promise, is all. I am not implying, though, that other people share my opinion, or that they should; nor am I implying that people who want to get rid of non-free software are breaking their promise. This is a subjective issue, and I am stating my take on it. shrug Clauses 1 and 5 of the social contract are in conflict anyway. I'm not greatly concerned by moving the line. No. They are only in conflict if you have a black and white world view. Uhh. What? They are clearly in conflict. It is merely the case that this conflict is resolvable, by picking a point somewhere between the two. The SC is *full* of these kind of conflicts; it does not take a hard line on very many things at all. And, despite not believing in absolutes, I still do not like moving the line on a whimsy, without even discussiong an amelioration of the imact on the users. Another random assertion about motivations and intent. I'm not going to respond other than to point that out. -- .''`. ** 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 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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: If his answer to what's the point? is nothing more involved than because I want it to be known where the developership stands on the question I proposed, and he gets the requisite seconds, isn't it better to call the vote rather than discussing interminably? Who cares? Why do you ask? How does this question have any relevance? [a] he hasn't gotten the requisite number of seconds, Do stop waving that around. I rounded up enough people in under an hour, just by asking on IRC, last weekend (but haven't bothered to chase them up just yet, for reasons of my own). We'll go through the formalities at a suitable time (which is likely to be fairly soon). [b] other people posting, ostensibly in favor of his proposals seem to think there is some other point, You've missed the point here. People have different motivations. Asking Why do you personally think we should drop non-free? is reasonable, but don't expect an answer from everybody (I don't particularly want to answer that question), and don't expect everybody to give the same answer. I'm fairly sure people have a lot of different reasons on both sides. Asking Why are you asking the question?, which is what you've done a few times now in various forms, is silly. [c] some of these other people might very well have other proposals to offer. Bogus. Anybody can offer a proposal at any time (a few people even have). I've dealt with several more in private; I didn't pull either of my two proposals out of thin air. Handwaving about proposals that nobody has made is silly. Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless by design? NO! That's the really bad part of Andrew's proposal. While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot options themselves are insincere, that encourages insincere voting. Pure FUD (based on self-evidently ridiculous assumptions). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:45:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Are you objecting to finding the real reasons underlying this issue? Actually, I am. Finding the real reasons underlying this issue is synonymous with Have a big argument. We don't actually need to trawl everybodies opinions out on public mailing lists in order for people to vote their opinions. I have no objection to people debating particular points, but insisting that we need to explore every opinion involved is both futile and flamebait. The reasons for my opinion will almost certainly have no effect on yours, so you don't need to know them - and that's probably true for most other people too. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:11:05AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: It is not Debian's historical policy to make things harder solely to pursue a political goal. Funnily enough, when Debian was first formed, a lot of people loudly disagreed with this. -- .''`. ** 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 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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when this is all moot anyway). On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:33:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Y'see, that's the reason why I'm trying to avoid this part of the discussion. You have implied I meant something other than what I said, and thrown in an assertion that anybody who does not agree with you is a zealot (which may be technically correct [One who holds a strong opinion which you do not entertain], but which you imply has negative connotations [which is a pretty narrow reading of the dictionary]). Except... a zealot is unreasoning. Or are you claiming that if you participated in this discussion you'd still be unreasoning? It's exactly like trying to discuss a security hole with an upstream author who calls you a hacker all the time (in every respect I can think of). Except, here, the upstream author is trying to hold the discussion, and the hacker is refusing to discuss relevant details. -- 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 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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
[a] he hasn't gotten the requisite number of seconds, On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:47:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Do stop waving that around. I rounded up enough people in under an hour, just by asking on IRC, last weekend (but haven't bothered to chase them up just yet, for reasons of my own). We'll go through the formalities at a suitable time (which is likely to be fairly soon). I like to think they're holding out for something better. If only a better rationale. I know that if nothing better were possible that you'd be able to get sufficient seconds. [b] other people posting, ostensibly in favor of his proposals seem to think there is some other point, You've missed the point here. People have different motivations. Asking Why do you personally think we should drop non-free? is reasonable, but don't expect an answer from everybody (I don't particularly want to answer that question), and don't expect everybody to give the same answer. I'm not expecting that. However, people with different motivations can cooperate, once they know what issues they're dealing with, at least. I'm fairly sure people have a lot of different reasons on both sides. Asking Why are you asking the question?, which is what you've done a few times now in various forms, is silly. It's better to look a bit silly, and get good specs, than it is to put a lot of effort in the wrong direction. [c] some of these other people might very well have other proposals to offer. Bogus. Anybody can offer a proposal at any time (a few people even have). I've dealt with several more in private; I didn't pull either of my two proposals out of thin air. Handwaving about proposals that nobody has made is silly. A prerequisite for a good proposal [as opposed to shooting from the hip] is understanding the problems being addressed. Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless by design? NO! That's the really bad part of Andrew's proposal. While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot options themselves are insincere, that encourages insincere voting. Pure FUD (based on self-evidently ridiculous assumptions). You appear to have stated that you do not care to discuss the merits of your proposal, and that you wish other people wouldn't, as well. That still smacks of insincerity. I agree that the toothless by design proposal that he was referring to has been superseded by a better proposal. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: prize?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:54:12AM +0800, Cesar B. Umali wrote: I got a banner that said I was the 50,000,000 visitor. To close window contact the prize department. Cesar: We do not know what prize you are talking about. Debian is a volunteer organization dedicated to providing a distribution of Linux. We are seeing several of these letters a month. We would very much like to know where the banner is that is refering people to debian.org, so that this nonsense can be stopped. Please tell us what website the banner ad appear on. Thanks. Jim Penny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:07:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to setup a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X isn't trivially small. It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make that effort much more than a folly if this vote doesn't succeed. I can't blame people for not wanting to build follies. [ I missed Anthony's message; this reply is to what he wrote rather than MJ's text ] I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference. I don't think you can read anything at all into that. -- John -- 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]
Statistics on non-free usage
Hello, I thought it interesting to find out just how much non-free is used. I wrote up a quick Python script that analyzes the latest popularity-contest results. Any cavets that apply to popcon results will, of course, apply this this analysis. Below you will see some selected output from the analyzer. It includes a few packages in main for comparison, then all packages in non-free. The numbers reported are in percents, not absolute users. This, I think, makes it easier to see what is going on. Also, the output is sorted by vote. The fields are (per apenwarr's definition): * Vote: Number of people that use the package regularly. * Old: Number of people with it installed but not used regularly * Recent: Upgraded too recently for stats to be valid * Unknown: No files in the package were used in stats collection From the data, we can see that: * The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%). * In main, gs has 42%, xpdf-reader 26%, gv 20%. tar was at 87% and unzip at 49%. * kaffe was at 4%, gcj and gij at 2%, and jikes at 4%. (These are not listed below because the fell beneath the top non-free package and it was easier to omit all main packages after that point.) * Almost half of the packages in non-free installed on people's systems are never (or rarely) used. Here is the output: Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl base-files base 95120 99 bashbase 95210 99 gzipbase 95300 99 dpkgbase 95030 99 libc6 base 93050 99 tar base 87 1110 99 apt base 787 130 99 makedevel 60 18 180 97 apache web 52830 65 unzip utils 49 3130 84 libncursesw5libs 436 160 67 gs text 42 15 150 73 mozilla-browser web 41 1450 61 lynxweb 33 2730 65 gsfonts text 31 36 106 85 emacs21 editors 29410 35 xpdf-reader text 26 1570 48 spamassassinmail 254 100 40 openoffice.org editors 25790 42 netpbm graphics 22 33 160 72 gv text 20 13 230 58 acroreadnon-free/text 18900 28 unrar non-free/utils14 11 120 39 j2re1.4 non-free/libs 11510 18 rar non-free/utils10 1710 28 lha non-free/utils 8 1720 27 mpg123 non-free/sound 6 1610 24 j2sdk1.4non-free/devel 5710 14 j2re1.3 non-free/libs 5400 10 graphviznon-free/graphics4 1000 16 gs-aladdin non-free/text 41107 netpbm-nonfree non-free/graphics4 1600 21 latex2html non-free/tex 49 140 29 zoo non-free/utils 4900 14 distributed-net non-free/misc 30004 j2sdk1.3non-free/devel 34007 xanim non-free/graphics3 1300 16 xsnow non-free/x11 24007 xearth non-free/games 2700 10 jdk1.1 non-free/devel 25008 ncompress non-free/utils 25109 navigator-smotif-477non-free/web 13005 mpg123-esd non-free/sound 13005 netperf non-free/net 10002 xmame non-free/games 14006 mpg123-oss-3dnow
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: Statistics on non-free usage
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I thought it interesting to find out just how much non-free is used. I wrote up a quick Python script that analyzes the latest popularity-contest results. Any cavets that apply to popcon results will, of course, apply this this analysis. Below you will see some selected output from the analyzer. It includes a few packages in main for comparison, then all packages in non-free. The numbers reported are in percents, not absolute users. This, I think, makes it easier to see what is going on. Also, the output is sorted by vote. The fields are (per apenwarr's definition): * Vote: Number of people that use the package regularly. * Old: Number of people with it installed but not used regularly * Recent: Upgraded too recently for stats to be valid * Unknown: No files in the package were used in stats collection From the data, we can see that: * The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%). acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so should probably be excluded from any analysis. Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere). * In main, gs has 42%, xpdf-reader 26%, gv 20%. tar was at 87% and unzip at 49%. Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar. Interesting statistics. Thanks for doing this, John. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
Hello John, Fo a special Project I need to create new Debian-CD's but 'Console Only'. For this I need to know, in which sequenz I must put the packages onto the CD's... Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ? If yes, where can I get it ? In general I need only 'main', 'contrib' and 'non-US' Thanks in advance Michelle -- Registered Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:47:19PM +0100, Yven Johannes Leist wrote: I find it somewhat ironical that you bring up something like this, since I personally have to admit that your permanently repeated insinuations about how people not wanting to drop non-free are perhaps also in favor of putting 'warez' in main and for repealing clause 1 of the Social Contract I didn't insinuate. I have openly speculated that it is conceivable (and, for certain sets of premises, consistent) for people to hold that position. make it very hard for me to maintain the view that you are actually trying to foster such a cooperative and convivial atmosphere yourself :( Was this message supposed to exemplify the irony you claim to be observing? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | De minimis non curat lex. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is less appealing by the moment. This is like sayting that we already had a file transfer mechanism in uuco, and thus uucp is a replacement for http and every other file tranfer protocol that has been subsequently invented. Your viewpoint would be better sereved if you did not press your case to the stretching point, where you did not give the impression that things that are not true replacements shall be trumpeted as replacements just to get rid of the non-fre srtucture, whether or not the users of the non-free programs are ill served or not. At the very least, this is dishonest. Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :) For what it's worth (probably not much to you, given the tone of your replies to my contributions to this discussion), I don't personally see the existence of replacements in main for software in non-free as bearing on the question of dropping non-free. I feel this way mainly because the meaning of replacement is highly subjective, and bound to change from work to work. It is also because I dislike arguments which use concepts like necessary evil; I don't think it buys us much to devalue non-free software on some principle, and then turn right around and say but this is particular devalued thing is so important that we'll give it a pass. But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's no trick to being a Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government working for you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the fence. Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice. I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject. I personally am willing to concede that a few more people might vote in favor of removing non-free if a PDF hundreds of pages in length were prepared cataloging every piece of software in it, and putting forth a more comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has ever seen before. It challenges my credulity that dropping non-free would be anywhere close to as painful from a technical and infrastructural perspective as the transition from libc5 to libc6. It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocates of a highly bureaucratized approach when it comes to dropping non-free. From my perspective, bureaucracy (i.e., documented procedures, clearly delineated powers) is justified by abuse of power (actual or potential). I don't understand how a GR, itself a democratic process, to remove non-free could be an abuse of power. And I *definitely* don't see how a non-binding survey could be such. Perhaps someone could explain it to me? -- G. Branden Robinson|It may be difficult to to determine Debian GNU/Linux |where religious beliefs end and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |mental illness begins. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Elaine Cassel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :) He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocates of a highly bureaucratized approach when it comes to dropping non-free. From my perspective, bureaucracy (i.e., documented procedures, clearly delineated powers) is justified by abuse of power (actual or potential). I don't know if you consider me to be one of those folks, or not. However, if I am, I believe a common thread for at least one person will be: Fix what's broke, don't fix what's not broke. [This is orthogonal to ad-hoc vs. highly bureaucratized.] However, I will grant the possibility that some developers are solely concerned about the ad-hoc vs. highly bureaucratized axis. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot. How is this information useful to anyone? Is there any form the proposal could take that you *wouldn't* rank below the default option? Well, in most other peoples opinion I am not Raul, I take it this was an attempt at humor? but let me respond anyway. If there was a reasonable expectation that users of software present on Debian servers that does not meet the DFSG would continue to get a equivalent quality of support for that software that the debian distribution servers, the debian bts, and attention from debian developers assures them, I would rank it above the default option. Okay. Can you provide an example of how that reasonable expectation could be established, in your opinion? I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which there is not yet a free replacement, As I noted in another reply, I do not share this premise, though I can see why some people would. so that our usaers can use Debian, not as a pedantically pure toy, I do not understand how removal of non-free reduces the Debian distribution to a pedantically pure toy. I suspect there are many people who are able to get their work done without using packages from the non-free section. My workstation where I employed is one example (I've had non-free Debian packages installed on it in the past -- some months ago -- but they were so restrictively licensed even Debian could not distribute them). but as a useful tool in a world that is not yet all libre software, I do not understand how it is non-free software that *makes* Debian useful. That Debian's utility to some audiences can be enhanced through the use of packages that happen not to be freely licensed is probably not in dispute. That the Debian Project is an essential clearing house for such packages is, apparently. in the hope that, just like netscape, free replacements shall render the software in non-free obsolete. I do not hold out such hopes in the general case. Whether a non-free piece of software is likely to be re-implemented freely is influenced by many variables, and definitely not an inevitability. I suspect that in many cases a non-free work doesn't get rewritten because not enough people feel it needs to be. Do you personally have an itch to rewrite tome or zangband, or are you fairly content with them as-is? I would much rather the non-free section withered away because there was no need for it, because no developer felt the need to populate it with stuff they needed or wantred; Some might call me a pessimist, but I don't think that is going to happen for a very long time. rather than decreeing its abolishment by a HR dictum. I take it you mean GR vote? What is abhorrent about voting on this? If you feel there are areas of Project management that should not be trusted to our democratic processes, please propose a GR to amend the Constitution and disempower the developers accordingly. It's well-known that there are people who are vehemently opposed to anything but the status quo, and some others who'd rather demolish the distinction between non-free and main entirely. Ah yes. Polemics. Smear the opposition, rather than counter any arguments. And so it starts. Are you trying to be distracting, or is your sincere contention that: 1) No one is strongly opposed to the status quo WRT non-free; and 2) No one is interested in eliminating the distinction between non-free and main entirely. (Note that the above describes disjunct sets of people, as the latter is obviously not the status quo.) Is Alex Yukhimets still with us? Please define decent alternative for that infrastructure. What specifically do you expect people to be able to accomplish with a parallel infrastructure when the existing suffices? I would be willing to move my non-free packages over to the parrallel infrastructure -- and even help with some of the upkeep, even thought that would take time away from Debian. I can't, however, undertake to setup all the infrastructure by myself -- I do not have the resources. Would you then (subsequently) support the removal of non-free from Debian, or are there other criteria you'd like to see met first? If Debian is but a pedantically pure toy without the non-free section, then I would hope that you would not endorse a proposal that would damage it thus. People who raise this point often seem to be constructing a catch-22; if we don't have an alternative infrastructure in place before dropping Debian's support for non-free, then there is a pragmatic objection to dropping non-free; however, if the
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed. I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access to software that isn't actually in it. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work, and I am not going to insist on that people write any software. On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free appear to me as solutions looking for a problem rather than anything I'd want to see implemented. Removing non-free would: 1) narrow the focus of our labor a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to maintain the non-free section; or b) explicitly acknowledging what is tacitly understood, that the non-free section is already a second-class citizen that enjoys little in the way of QA 2) improve our détente with other members of the Free Software community, particularly the Free Software Foundation; and 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system (Whether people are likely to agree with 1a or 1b depends on how well they think the non-free section is maintained and kept up at present.) I acknowledge that some people don't feel any of the above goals are worth pursuing -- but that doesn't mean that everyone does. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If existence exists, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | why create a creator? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free? You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it seems your messages confused me. Oh, you don't have to. But you may get more votes if you do Not everything is an exercise in electioneering. -- G. Branden Robinson|As people do better, they start Debian GNU/Linux |voting like Republicans -- unless [EMAIL PROTECTED] |they have too much education and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |vote Democratic. -- Karl Rove signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:16:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: One effect of removing non-free from Debian is that we can't use all the infrastructure we already have for non-free -- the archive, the BTS, the buildds, and everything else (our n-m process, the PTS, whatever). This means that for the bits of non-free that are still needed, will have to have the infrastructure reimplemented for them, or will have to do without it. Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure sucks up time and energy of maintainers on work that doesn't benefit free software; and reducing the available support for our users who need non-free software makes their lives more painful, or encourages them to switch to a different distribution. Not necessarily. A reimplementation of some Debian infrastructure might actually result in better tools. We've had years to learn from the mistakes made in our current infrastructure. If the people setting up the non-free infrastructure saw to it that their work was freely licensed, then Free Software *would* benefit. There would be new tools available that didn't exist before. It is also possible that the non-free section isn't getting everything it could out of the current infrastructure. The buildds come to mind. One way of demonstrating that the effort is trivial is to setup all that infrastructure. I don't think the triviality of effort is an interesting question, but YMMV. Surely, if the proposal passes, those who want the infrastructure will create it, if it is needed/important enough? Asking those who disagree with its use to create it seems unfair. People who disagree with the use of a separate non-free repository surely wouldn't be arguing for its creation, though, no? That's what I said, and Manoj accused me of dissembling. shrug -- G. Branden Robinson| Men are born ignorant, not stupid. Debian GNU/Linux | They are made stupid by education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bertrand Russell http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for http). Thanks for underscoring the subjectivity of such judgements. Alternatively, you could explain to me why I should be wasting my time with tome rather than nethack. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed. I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access to software that isn't actually in it. Depends whether the GFDL-in-main vote goes before or after the evict-non-free one :-) Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social infrastructures behind Debian non-free can be currently duplicated somewhere else. Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else can duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about evidence, Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing, and so are the people who put it together. That those people may be special and amazing doesn't necessarily mean they're good, as we've seen from your replies to my messages to this list and others over the years. I be must quite a liability to the Project. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to conspiracy that Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained [EMAIL PROTECTED] | by economics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: So far, the proposals have gotten as far as Deals with a problem. [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who think non-free is a thing we should support and people who think that non-free is not a thing we should support]. But where's the rest of it? On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Why does there need to be anything else? I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale behind what you've been proposing. Many have been offered over the past three and a half years. That you appear not to have found any of them persuasive means neither that they weren't offered, nor that no one else found them compelling. -- G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work, and I am not going to insist on that people write any software. On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free appear to me as solutions looking for a problem rather than anything I'd want to see implemented. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Removing non-free would: 1) narrow the focus of our labor a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to maintain the non-free section; or The potential gains here are negligible. It's kinda like eating a seven thousand calorie meal, then skipping the after dinner mint because you're on a diet. b) explicitly acknowledging what is tacitly understood, that the non-free section is already a second-class citizen that enjoys little in the way of QA I don't see any potential gains here at all. Enlighten me? 2) improve our détente with other members of the Free Software community, particularly the Free Software Foundation; and I don't know what improve our détente means. Enlighten me? [Does that mean that we can be holier than thou because we're not distributing their docs? Or does that mean that we're now immune to criticism because we've dropped some packages? Clearly, I'm missing the point.] 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue. At the moment, it's Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out and shot. [I'm relaying a sentiment I've had expressed to me from more than one person.] With your change, that could become Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out and shot. But I hear they're really strict about what software they accept. Or consider something like My ethernet card didn't work. It turns out that Debian gave me a 2.2 kernel. To my knowledge, none of the programs in non-free would be installed by default during a task-* install. People have to go out of their way to find those programs even if they've just included non-free in sources.list. That's what matters to most people. Plus, when we do drop non-free, we can get a fair bit of publicity about it, for all that it's a fairly minor number of packages. It would be really nice if that were publicity which showed us in a good light. (Whether people are likely to agree with 1a or 1b depends on how well they think the non-free section is maintained and kept up at present.) I acknowledge that some people don't feel any of the above goals are worth pursuing -- but that doesn't mean that everyone does. How about people who think those goals are worth pursuing, but that the current effort makes things worse more than it makes things better. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for http). Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-) Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000 University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and the gopher developers Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative for HTTP (for at least some purposes). And, I wouldn't be devoting my time to maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't believe that was, at least sometimes, the case. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else. I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be able to express them as succintly as you have. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:51:36PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ? If yes, where can I get it ? In general I need only 'main', 'contrib' and 'non-US' Yes, the full raw data is available http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr//popcon/ -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't] recognize other proposals to solve the same problem. On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: You haven't made any proposals. You asked for other people to make some. Nobody did. I have not made any proposals which need to be voted on. I have made proposals [in the context of examples of how I might tackle specific problems]. If you actually have a proposal to make, the process for making it is well documented. You seem to be thinking that the useful thing we're trying to do here is vote on something. Can I ask what useful things you do for the Project, apart from serving exclusively on the Technical Committee of all Debian's infrastructural teams[1], and which has apparently demanded nothing of you for at least 6 months[2] (and to which your last public contribution was in November of 2002[3], maintain four small packages[4] -- of which none has been uploaded by you in over a year[5], despite the fact that you have NMU-fixed bugs you need to acknowledge[6]? In other words, I am trying to determine the labors upon which you legitimize your self-appointed role as a moral voice for the Project while still being too busy to put forth the sort of concrete proposals you criticize others for not producing. Frankly, I'm stumped as to how you have time to contribute to mailing list discussions, usually to strenously advocate *not* doing something (like clear a GR that has been stalled for over 3 years[7], as the non-free section discussions of the past 2 months have endeavored to do), and not to contribute to the Debian Project in other ways. Perhaps I am merely ignorant; please take this opportunity to trumpet your accomplishments -- I promise I won't regard you as immodest for doing so, just this once. [1] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/ (longer than that, really, but I'll regard Wichert's ping of the list in the most chartiable possible light) [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2002/debian-ctte-200211/threads.html [4] http://www.debian.org/devel/people [5] I searched my own archives of debian-devel-changes, but the Project's archives are available for independent inspection at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/ [6] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [7] http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008 -- G. Branden Robinson| To be is to do -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | To do is to be -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do be do be do -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: That you appear not to have found any of them persuasive means neither that they weren't offered, nor that no one else found them compelling. Actually, John Goerzen pointed out some of his to me. However, his rationale seems to call for a bit stricter change than what Andrew proposed. [With John's rationale, we shouldn't be supporting non-free.] Or maybe you're claiming that some rationale was presented which is just right for Andrew's most recent proposal? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
From the data, we can see that:
* The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so should probably
be excluded from any analysis.
Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I
thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free
distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere).
Excellent points. No, acroread is not in non-free. j2re1.4 also is
not, nor is j2dsk1.4 or, in fact, any Java newer than 1.1. I dare say
that Java 1.1 in non-free is about the same usefulness as Kaffe for
today's programs.
So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from
non-free on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's
non-free (any more). Also, no version of Java later than 1.1 is
present.
* In main, gs has 42%, xpdf-reader 26%, gv 20%. tar was at 87% and
unzip at 49%.
Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar.
It, of course, depends on what you're doing, but yes, I realize that. I
just tried to show a smattering of similar programs so people can
compare.
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
files used anywhere.
Interesting statistics. Thanks for doing this, John.
Glad to do it.
-- John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion, good enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is worth little. It is your contention, then, that our Standard Resolution Procedure as exercised by the Developers to issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements is nothing more than an indulgence of whimsy? Even when such whimsies require a supermajority to enact? What value are the high barriers to amendment of the Social Contract if whimsical alterations can easily clear them? Conversely, what have we to fear from whimsical alterations if it's all but impossible to pass them? -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:11:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. Those people may want to take a look at my alternate suggestion of making sarge the last release with non-free. That would provide ample opportunity to set up nonfree.org. Well, sarge is probably going to have a non-free component anyway, as its release doesn't appear to be coming along any *more* slowly than any of the proposed GRs that would eliminate it. -- G. Branden Robinson| I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:48:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Can I ask what useful things you do for the Project, apart from serving Yeah, but I've been largely offline for most of the past two years, so most of what I did was pretty ancient. Let's see... I documented dpkg-deb (and the file format), and helped design the semantics for dpkg. I've supported a variety of small packages over the years, though nothing the size and complexity of X. I was for most of several years the gadfly advocating that KDE be relicensed under the GPL. But, you're right, I've not done much recently, because I didn't a debian machine I trusted to do package signing (and generally I've been relying on borrowed machines until last month). In other words, I am trying to determine the labors upon which you legitimize your self-appointed role as a moral voice for the Project while still being too busy to put forth the sort of concrete proposals you criticize others for not producing. I've got package changes I'd upload right now, if I could authenticate with db.debian.org. I can't, however, because I have an old pgp key, and apparently the infrastructure still hasn't recovered from the recent security outage to tell me my new password. Frankly, I'm stumped as to how you have time to contribute to mailing list discussions, usually to strenously advocate *not* doing something (like clear a GR that has been stalled for over 3 years[7], as the A lot of that is because I'm rather limited in what else I can do. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR files used anywhere.
I believe they still in wide use as transport for games with, uhm,
removed copy protection. At least one of my former flatmates had loads
of them floating around on his box.
There are a lot of other uses for it, and it seems having a closer look
for a free replacement of unrar (who'd need rar?) would be worthwhile.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
Le Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen écrivait:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
files used anywhere.
It's commonly used to distribute DivX or other big multimediua files
through NTTP (alt.binaries.*).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:13:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our FTP archive for this software. Perhaps my command of English is shaky, but I notice more than one tense in this context of yours. Note that We will be guided is a promise. Note that We have created is purely informational, and not some promise we made that needs to be weaseled out of. Uh, just FYI, I made this point (an examination of the differences in language between the final clause of the Social Contract and the others) back in 2000 or so, and was accused by Manoj of Clintonesque weaselling.[1] So, we've been over this ground before, and there is no particular reason to expect Manoj in particular to be persuaded by such analyses, even when founded on objective fact. (Yes, the verb tenses really are different, and yes, the title of SC #5 doesn't make a statement, whereas the titles of all the others do.) [1] I can't find the cite at present. I clearly remember it, but memory is an imperfect thing. If Manoj challenges my recollection, I'll do an exhaustive search of my mail archives, and if I still can't find it, I will retract this assertion. Manoj, do you remember this? -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:00:59AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: If you want to change the status quo, convince the voters. Maybe they're conviced already. Let's have the vote and see. -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're likely to need this documentation and [because someone doing network development often needs to be disconnected from the stable internet] having the documentation packaged and available locally would be useful. Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with debian.org in it. It's been a couple of days. I suspect you have your answer. -- G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux |let's die doing something *useful*! [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to. That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to stop putting any further effort into non-free? Nope. As I understand it, the point is to make it clear that such effort does not directly and effectively further the goals of the Debian Project -- the first and foremost of which is that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software[1]. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME. Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free. On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated packages you have mut. On the other hand, it's a development project, not a distribution of stuff available from elsewhere. You appear to be grasping. What critera must another project possess for you to regard it as comparable to non-free? What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? You need to identify traits other than something maintained by Debian, else you're begging the question. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too? Another instance is still not as good. You couldn't reassign a bug from a non-free package to a library in main that is depends on, for example. You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs which are really about bugs in upstream software. I don't see what's so difficult here. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to conspiracy that Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained [EMAIL PROTECTED] | by economics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract. Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why? -- G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often Debian GNU/Linux | pretenders. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Plato http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why? Does that look like a question? No, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote. The vote has identified some logical buckets into which various parts of that work fall, and indicates we can update them independently. I see no problem with that. I am, however, pointing out what I see as a conceptual flaw in the idea of using Bruce Perens' writing as *the moral basis* for modifying that same writing. I do see a problem there. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote: Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century government? Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved that. I think you are permitting yourself to be distracted by people who appear to be opposed to the very idea of voting on this. In rereading the Constitution, I cannot see why letting Mr. Suffield's proposal go through the Standard Resolution Procedure is anything other than perfectly in order. It can fail to gather enough seconds, it can fail to meet quorum, or it can be defeated by the Condorcet method -- there are plenty of opportunities for the Silent Majority to squelch it through regular procedure if it is premature, ill-advised, or simply insufficiently popular. The filibuster is not a parliamentary technique countenanced by our Constitution, and I confess I am not sure why advocates of the GR, and people who simply want to see the issue voted on are tolerating it. Perhaps they are excessively agreeable. :) We have been hearing from certain quarters that this proposal is not ripe for over three years. It's been talked to death, resurrected, and talked to death again. At least with a vote we'll have some concrete data we wouldn't otherwise have, and since the ballots will be public, people who oppose the removal of non-free can be asked directly what they feel needs to be done before it can be removed. If opponents of this GR would actually participate in the process properly, for instance by proposing an amended version that can appear on the ballot (Hell no. We must not remove non-free. Not now, not ever.), we will learn even more. Our Project is organized such that matters which are best handled by meritocratic methods (practically all technical decisions) are reserved to those with the merit to make them. Those which aren't, such as the election of the leadership, are handled democratically. Some people claim that the fact that this is a philsophical issue is what makes the GR defective. On the contrary, that's what makes it most appropriate for democratic resolution. These threads always end up the same way, with the same people rehashing the same arguments with each other and, seemingly, no one being persuaded to change their minds in the slightest. Let's put it to the rest of the Project, and at least move on to Chapter 2 of this damned thing. -- G. Branden Robinson|For every credibility gap, there is Debian GNU/Linux |a gullibility fill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Richard Clopton http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Revoking non-free less violently
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution than any of the other proposals? What's your definition of a problem? -- G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when Debian GNU/Linux | you laugh at them. Humor teaches [EMAIL PROTECTED] | them tolerance. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- W. Somerset Maugham signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
* Steve Langasek
Of course, tar and unzip are no substitute for unrar.
* John Goerzen
It, of course, depends on what you're doing, but yes, I realize that. I
just tried to show a smattering of similar programs so people can
compare.
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see RAR
files used anywhere.
I occasionally get subtitle collections for movies I download off the
net as RAR archives. Just tried the free unrar stuff from
http://www.unrarlib.org on a few of them, and it worked just fine.
It says it doesn't support all the various RAR formats yet, but with
a little work I assume it could become a fully adequate alternative to
the unrar in non-free (unless RAR is patent-encumbered, of course).
--
Tore Anderson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue. At the moment, it's Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out and shot. [I'm relaying a sentiment I've had expressed to me from more than one person.] With your change, that could become Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out and shot. But I hear they're really strict about what software they accept. Or consider something like My ethernet card didn't work. It turns out that Debian gave me a 2.2 kernel. So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we can all get back to working on the sarge installer? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
Also, are any of the java packages actually distributed by Debian? I thought there were legal issues that prevented even non-free distribution (though j2re/sdk packages are available elsewhere). Excellent points. No, acroread is not in non-free. j2re1.4 also is not, nor is j2dsk1.4 or, in fact, any Java newer than 1.1. I dare say that Java 1.1 in non-free is about the same usefulness as Kaffe for today's programs. So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from non-free on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's non-free (any more). Also, no version of Java later than 1.1 is present. This is probably obvious, but in case it's not... I often use alien to convert things like Sun's JDK rpms, or the rpms for the commercial schematic capture tool eagle (which I noticed in the list) and convert them to deb and install them. In at least one other thread I've said before it would be interesting to analyze the popularity contest results and see how many (packages and versions of) things not in (stable|testing|unstable)/(main|non-free|contrib) show up - probably mostly stuff like newer versions of KDE from downloads.kde.org, backport collections, etc. On my machines there is a fair amount of that kind of stuff. Take care, Dale -- Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc. Senior Computer Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cliftonlabs.com pgp key available signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved that. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I think you are permitting yourself to be distracted by people who appear to be opposed to the very idea of voting on this. That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this. I'm opposed to doing something which doesn't make sense, but I don't think that's equivalent. [Do you?] The filibuster is not a parliamentary technique countenanced by our Constitution, and I confess I am not sure why advocates of the GR, and people who simply want to see the issue voted on are tolerating it. Hogwash. The discussion period hasn't even started. There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revoking non-free less violently
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution than any of the other proposals? On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: What's your definition of a problem? In this context, I imagine it's two or more ideals or goals which are apparently in conflict because people don't bother to examine the nature of the goals. [So maybe dilemma would be a better word than problem.] More generally, however, a problem is a thing you're trying to solve. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revoking non-free less violently
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus on the details. Cut first, measure later? An interestingly reversed metaphor. It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the cutting. Passing a GR, in and of itself, does nothing tangible, just as the Social Contract has no force without a group of developers who pledge to uphold its meaning through their works. Similary, slavery is outlawed in every nation, but notoriously continues to be praticed, sometimes quite overtly[1]. It takes more than a piece of paper or exhortative words to make things happen, as I'm sure you're aware in your capacity as Release Manager. [1] http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html -- G. Branden Robinson|It may be difficult to to determine Debian GNU/Linux |where religious beliefs end and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |mental illness begins. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Elaine Cassel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: It says it doesn't support all the various RAR formats yet, but with a little work I assume it could become a fully adequate alternative to the unrar in non-free (unless RAR is patent-encumbered, of course). I believe that the only relevant patent is the unysis lzw patent, which expired last year. It's impossible to tell when a patent will spring up, but it's usually a good idea to ignore the millions of unknowable patents. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we can all get back to working on the sarge installer? I don't know about you, but I need to get myself non-production machine set up before I can even test the installer. [I did my last install with the old boot floppies.] And I'm not comfortable fixing something I can't test. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's where we address things like what's the point? On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not supposed to be used as a filibuster. I never suggested that it was. And, in fact, it's the Secretary who gets to say when the discussion period is over, precisely because it might involve a judgment call. If his answer to what's the point? is nothing more involved than because I want it to be known where the developership stands on the question I proposed, and he gets the requisite seconds, isn't it better to call the vote rather than discussing interminably? Who cares? Why do you ask? How does this question have any relevance? Because I see the same arguments as always being trotted out and filling my mailbox; and I'm loathe to unsubscribe from debian-vote, but don't see that most of these discussions really do anything to advance understanding of the proposal actually on the table. If this proposal really doesn't compel us to *do* anything and amounts only to a referendum on the question, it gives us insight into the views of the developership and tells us whether more debate is really needed (and from which side). Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless by design? NO! That's the really bad part of Andrew's proposal. While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot options themselves are insincere, that encourages insincere voting. Sorry, insincere ballot options doesn't parse. Insincere voting refers to the process of strategically ranking options on a ballot in a way that does not correspond to the voter's true preference. You must be using the word insincere to mean something completely different here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, I wrote: By insincere ballot option I mean an option which does not represent the true preference of the people proposing it. Actually, I meant a bit more than that -- I meant an option which not only doesn't represent the true preference of the people proposing it, but one which couldn't represent the true preference of anyone voting for it. However, it's important to point out that that particular proposal has since been replaced by one that doesn't have this sort of internal contradiction. -- 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 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: Revoking non-free less violently
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus on the details. Cut first, measure later? An interestingly reversed metaphor. It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the cutting. Yes, and making a resolution is the process of acting. Changing our social contract is acting. Removing non-free is acting. Passing a GR, in and of itself, does nothing tangible, Tell me you're seriously claiming that passing a GR that resolves to remove non-free and amend the social contract will result in no tangible changes. (By contrast, running a poll is an act of measurement, as is John's popcon stats, as is setting up a separate nonfree.org repository and seeing how much ongoing effort that is to maintain, as is working out what the consequences of the decision -- particularly wrt contrib -- are in detail.) 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference. Huh? Why do you think the only people able to setup a non-free archive are ones that want to see it kept in Debian? And if you think that doing so would go a long way toward getting non-free *out* of Debian, why don't *you* do it? Set it up, make sure it works, maintain it for a few months, then pass it on to people who care about it. I don't think you can read anything at all into that. Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand, suggest nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical, even though it supports the arguments they're making and would aid in a goal they seem to think is desirable. 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand, suggest nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical, even though it supports the arguments they're making and would aid in a goal they seem to think is desirable. For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to the question what will happen to current non-free? that seems to worry some people. Meanwhile, I don't understand how people can argue that there is nothing special about non-free being on the debian systems, yet a much smaller-scale version of a similar infrastructure is beyond the rest of the world. -- 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 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote: For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to the question what will happen to current non-free? that seems to worry some people. If it's unethical and harmful to our users, then it's _not_ an answer to the question that worries people: will this benefit or harm our users? If nonfree.org *will* happen, then the hypothetical benefits to our users due to more work happening on free software because of the lack of non-free software aren't going to come to pass. And by contrast, if you want nonfree.org *not* to happen -- if you want to actually get the benefits that you seem to be envisaging -- you need to find some other way of addressing the concerns that nonfree.org would solve. The arguments you and others are making here just aren't consistent. Meanwhile, I don't understand how people can argue that there is nothing special about non-free being on the debian systems, yet a much smaller-scale version of a similar infrastructure is beyond the rest of the world. The infrastructure work involved in maintaining Debian as it is is: M: Support main component for 10k packages X: Support multiple components for an additional 1k packages The infrastructure work involved in maintaining non-free.org is: N: Support non-free component for 1k packages M is large, X is trivial by comparison. The difference between M and N doesn't seem particularly great, and N seems consequently much larger than X. Currently, we support non-free at a cost of M+X. In the future, we either support contrib at a cost of M+X, or we just support main at a cost of M. If nonfree.org gets created and supported, it's maintained at a cost of N. So the outcomes are: * Keep contrib, setup nonfree.org: cost M+X+N * Keep contrib, nonfree.org not needed: cost M+X * Drop contrib, setup nonfree.org: cost M+N * Drop contrib, nonfree.org not needed: cost M The only one of these that reduces our time spent on maintaining infrastructure is the latter; all the others maintain it, or increase it substantially. I don't think anyone's arguing that it's beyond the rest of the world; personally I'm just arguing that it's a waste of effort for no gain; or at the very least that the costs are significant and definite, and the gains are insubstantial and hypothetical. It's entirely possible to prove me wrong here, if that's actually the case: do the experiment and measure the time and effort it takes. The effort that'd go into that is around N too -- so if you think it's too much effort, well, doesn't that just mean you agree with me? 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On 2004-01-09 03:05:23 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If nonfree.org *will* happen, then the hypothetical benefits to our users due to more work happening on free software because of the lack of non-free software aren't going to come to pass. I don't think that conclusion follows. And by contrast, if you want nonfree.org *not* to happen -- [...] Forseeing that it will happen can be consistent with wanting it not to happen. The arguments you and others are making here just aren't consistent. I make no attempt to be consistent with the arguments of others. M is large, X is trivial by comparison. The difference between M and N doesn't seem particularly great, and N seems consequently much larger than X. [...] X (non-free for debian) may be trivial compared to M (main for debian), but I am not convinced that M and N (non-free outside debian) necessarily need be similar size. at the very least that the costs are significant and definite, and the gains are insubstantial and hypothetical. I disagree that the costs are definite: so far, it's nearly all hypothetical. That said, I think this is where we differ fundamentally. It may be because you are looking at the effect globally or on yourself instead of on the project, in a shorter term, or some other way. It's entirely possible to prove me wrong here, if that's actually the case: do the experiment and measure the time and effort it takes. It seems that there are insufficient resources interested in this experiment to do it, but that does not really indicate that there would not be sufficient resources interested to do it for real. -- 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: GR: Removal of non-free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Langasek wrote: So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we can all get back to working on the sarge installer? An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. Here are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...): 1) GR proposed by Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] available at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00011.html 2) GR seconded by Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] available at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00012.html 3) GR seconded by Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] available at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00064.html 4) GR modified by Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] available at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html 5) GR modification seconded by Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] available at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00069.html So, it would seem that the modified GR still needs four additional seconds in order to be officially introduced and be eligible to be called to a vote. - --Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE//jOHKl23+OYWEqURAhtxAJ9CvdPg2tVJHd3PdLJ2aYu4gDWL+gCghJTN +qvtqwvObFVoaU9/69Xe6lQ= =++bZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: An excellent idea! However, although the minimum discussion period has been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. False. The minimum discussion period hasn't started, so it can't have been exceeded. The minimum discussion period doesn't begin till after the proposal is introduced. The proposal is introduced when it gets enough seconds. Since, apparently, reading the constitution to find this out for yourself is a bit too hard, I'll quote it for you: A.1. Proposal The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and sponsored, as required. A.1. Discussion and Amendment 1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed. Amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored according to the requirements for a new resolution, or directly by the proposer of the original resolution. ... A.2. Calling for a vote 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has elapsed. It's mildly annoying that we've got two different A.1. sections, but what they say is pretty clear. I'm guessing, since you're not the first person to express exactly this same wrong idea, that this is a fallout from some irc discussion, or some such. -- 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]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free Software and then eventually see Oh, there's this non-free stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there. I think that with the old non-free question, most people installing Debian (the vast majority even) select yes to non-free, even if there is nothing in non-free that they want (or know they want) and then end up installing non-free software that was listed in their cache or showed up in a default search on the website when perhaps they would have been just as happy with a free replacement. I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a way that its easy for users that really want non-free software but not so easy that people instinctively choose it en mass is a good gaol One benefit is that it all ends up being a lot less controversial than the sorts of proposals that spawn this thread. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpWR2ZrSeZ0m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's not currently a relevant issue. That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free contains packages some people rely on. On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are orphaned and broken. insert slippery slope stuff here It becomes a problem of Where do you draw the line? I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists. Obviously, some people would. That's why we need to vote. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpD6Rniupoul.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: We *can* be Free-only
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I believe that Debian can be the world's first large-scale Free-only operating system project. I believe it already is. non-free part of our archive. Imagine, then, how much greator those effects would be by completely banning that software from our project until it gets a Free license! There's no evidence that this is true. Some users who require non-free software to use their computer in their own language or to support their hardware will simply switch to Red Hat, Mandrake or some other distribution which doesn't care so much about the DFSG. Then we've lost any chance to convince them of the benefits of DFSG-free software. I don't think we are likely to pick up any additional users because we stop distributing non-free software. Where would those users come from? They don't have a more-free system they can use now. 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: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-07 18:30:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote: No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example [...] Personally, I'd rather you faced this fear than make everyone else help you avoid it. Personally, I do not plan to face pointless exchanges, so I'll avoid it and not reply further to your message.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-07 14:11:05 + Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. The web of trust issue. The web of trust can probably be extended through some signing of external package providers and a web of trust being established between them. That extends the general web of trust, which may be a good thing. Would it count as support for non-free? I don't think so. [...] encouraging the free Java SDKs to become better so that Eclipse, et alia, can move to main is a more important goal than dropping support for Eclipse, etc. It sounds that this is near, for at least some. Will you work with debian-java and the package maintainers to help it happen? -- 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: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote: No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example [...] On 2004-01-07 18:30:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I'd rather you faced this fear than make everyone else help you avoid it. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:18:18PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Personally, I do not plan to face pointless exchanges, so I'll avoid it and not reply further to your message. There are other ways of avoiding pointless exchanges than changing Debian's social contract. For example, in your hypothetical exchange you could have started out by asking What is it about A that you consider important? And, possibly What packages have you already eliminated as alternatives to A, and why? -- Raul
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:16:48PM +, MJ Ray wrote: but things like inability to repair is more important: users get used to some software, then it gets deleted thanks to an unfixable serious bug. Ow. Well, the only bugs in this category (would cause it's removal and can't be fixed) are security problems and bugs that make the package useless to everyone. I expect we'd be willing to waive any policy requirements that can't be legally fixed. I don't think that would be a problem for users, although certainly they should be aware of the risk before they install stuff from non-free. We've done worse things in main, though. We removed micq because upstream tricked us; even though there was nothing stopping us from fixing the problem. I don't think removing packages people rely on for cause is a show-stopper in any way. That didn't answer my second question. I think some packagers are reluctant to help reduce the need for their non-free packages, so I suspect that they will never accept their packages are not needed and we will never satisfy the when part of your answer. I doubt anyone with a package in contrib wants to keep it there, no matter what their position on non-free is. Having no packages that're worth maintaining in contrib would be a strong argument that non-free software isn't necessary anymore, IMO. 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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-07 14:13:23 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the temporal scope of our social contract? [...] If forever, [...] Why is there a way to change it in the constitution? If you mean dropping promised support with no transition, then forever. ...and if I don't? Regardless, why do you think we can change this, yet it should not be changed? Can a GR commit to any specific transition support? Would creating a specific transition plan before knowing whether the transition is going to happen be flamed as premature? Would adding the words there will be a transition plan be enough? Do these individual packages have active, responsive develpers, and a user community that is engaged? If so (though I rarely bandy around words like immoral), yes, that would have been wrong too. I am almost certain there have been active developers and users of a deleted package. The reliability and loyalty case for non-free is dubious, as we can't properly test, verify or repair some of it. Why is it dubious? Because you say so? How is it any less testable than the utility of Debian as a whole? I think it can be less testable because a no testing licence can get into non-free. That is part of why I think it dubious, but things like inability to repair is more important: users get used to some software, then it gets deleted thanks to an unfixable serious bug. Ow. Will that ever happen? Will non-free packagers work towards this? When there is no need for the non-free packages, the packagers shall desist. That didn't answer my second question. I think some packagers are reluctant to help reduce the need for their non-free packages, so I suspect that they will never accept their packages are not needed and we will never satisfy the when part of your answer. -- 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On 2004-01-07 04:18:38 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: i is the time saved by not having to worry about non-free stuff. I expect that's pretty small, but non-zero. n is the time taken trying to maintain software with poorer infrastructure than Debian has. X is the time taken maintaining that infrastructure b is the extra time people devote to Debian because of our righteous stand; it's negative if time's lost. b = i - (n+X) I'm not sure that b can be expressed so neatly. At the very least, you could also have D, the developer time currently not given to debian because of non-free but not spent on non-free, and against that there is d, the developer time currently given to debian by developers who quit over this. They may both be sizeable, for all we know just now. You also seem to dismiss the possibility that external infrastructures could outperform Debian in the limit, which would make n negative eventually. There are probably other variables we missed. I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to setup a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X isn't trivially small. It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make that effort much more than a folly if this vote doesn't succeed. I can't blame people for not wanting to build follies. -- 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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:08:05AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: Obviously, some people would. That's why we need to vote. So the reason why we need to vote is not that there's any tangible benefit other than the satisfying the opinions of some people? Are you objecting to finding the real reasons underlying this issue? What's your point? Thanks, -- Raul
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: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:11:40 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. Someone thought it important enough to sp[end time tracking down the sources, packaging it to follow Debian policy, and follow and fix bug reports. It is not the case that all those things are true for everything in non-free. It's not even true for everything in main. [No, I'm not going to try to demonstrate anything further than that - merely that there is reasonable justification for dissent from your personal opinion. I will however point out that if non-free contained only angband and tome, I would say we should dump it.] Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when this is all moot anyway). Y'see, that's the reason why I'm trying to avoid this part of the discussion. You have implied I meant something other than what I said, and thrown in an assertion that anybody who does not agree with you is a zealot (which may be technically correct [One who holds a strong opinion which you do not entertain], but which you imply has negative connotations [which is a pretty narrow reading of the dictionary]). It's exactly like trying to discuss a security hole with an upstream author who calls you a hacker all the time (in every respect I can think of). If there were evidence of the existence of other significant opinions, sure, we could write them into the ballot. If any appear, we still can. But there hasn't been, and I don't buy the silent majority theory, since it's almost impossible to get Debian developers to shut up at the best of times. If you are unwilling to discuss issues, how can other nascent opinions develop? I don't believe that it is necessary for people to talk to *me* before they can form opinions about things. So butt out. I've been trying to do exactly that, for the subthreads that go down those lines. You may wish to review your own mails to which I was replying (which were mostly filled with inaccurate assertions about my personal motivation and intent, rather than any kind of discussion of the issues). I like to keep my promise, is all. I am not implying, though, that other people share my opinion, or that they should; nor am I implying that people who want to get rid of non-free software are breaking their promise. This is a subjective issue, and I am stating my take on it. shrug Clauses 1 and 5 of the social contract are in conflict anyway. I'm not greatly concerned by moving the line. No. They are only in conflict if you have a black and white world view. Uhh. What? They are clearly in conflict. It is merely the case that this conflict is resolvable, by picking a point somewhere between the two. The SC is *full* of these kind of conflicts; it does not take a hard line on very many things at all. And, despite not believing in absolutes, I still do not like moving the line on a whimsy, without even discussiong an amelioration of the imact on the users. Another random assertion about motivations and intent. I'm not going to respond other than to point that out. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
