Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148 ^^ One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00405.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148 ^^ One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00405.html
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR. Oh, I see, it's just about excluding it from testing and unstable and stopping to support, so it still will be distributed :(. Not perfect, but better then nothing. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR. Oh, I see, it's just about excluding it from testing and unstable and stopping to support, so it still will be distributed :(. Not perfect, but better then nothing. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote: and thus [go a long way] towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want to setup such an archive. If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with BTS, signed uploads, mailing lists, etc., would you support the non-free GR, assuming what I set up is up to your quality standards? If you set it up, then found that it was approximately as easy to maintain non-free separately as it is in Debian, I'd be very surprised, and I'd definitely re-evaluate my take on the matter. If it turns out to be *easier* to maintain non-free debs outside Debian, or if it turns out they can be *better* maintained outside Debian (or both), I'd come close to being forced to revise my view. Some non-obvious, but non-trivial, concerns are managing new maintainers and managing license evaluation. OTOH, I also think there's also a lot of value in having non-free in Debian as a way to encourage non-free authors to free up their works. I don't think the hypothesised chances of improving this by removing non-free from Debian are likely to pan out at all, and I've seen no evidence at all to support them. [ I'm not currently saying I will set up nonfree.org, I don't currently have a machine to do it on, for example. Consider it a hypothetical, with a reasonable chance. And I don't think I'd want to host closed-source commercial software, like our ancient jdk's, communicator, acrobat reader, etc. ] It'd be very hard to convince me that a non-free archive that didn't host everything that's currently in non-free was as good as what we've currently got. Maybe if you had more recent versions of the jdk, or came to an arrangement to get some software that's not packaged at all atm -- say the proprietary RealPlayer codecs? -- then that might work. 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 Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook. Ah yes. The opposition is obviously not dedicated, interested in dialogue like we are. They are just fillibustering to prevent the righteous from getting their message out to the unwashed masses. Another superb example of argument by rediculing your opposition, often by imputing underhanded motivation to their cause. manoj -- The meek are contesting the will. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the founding of the project; and But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software (documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually it will be replaced or relicensed, but this will take a while. To effect this, a new version of the Social Contract with only clauses 1 through 4 is hereby issued. The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3 years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for their non-free packages. Note that nothing in here changes our promise to support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, which is in clause 1 of the Social Contract. Of course, this means that the FSF-provided documentation will mostly not be available in Debian. *Provided Debian decides to actually FOLLOW its Social Contract after Sarge, that is.) I can't support any proposal to remove non-free until the issue of non-free material in main is dealt with properly. Which it has *not* been. I encourage everyone to shelve these proposals and deal with the problem of making 'main' free first. :-P -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote: and thus [go a long way] towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want to setup such an archive. If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with BTS, signed uploads, mailing lists, etc., would you support the non-free GR, assuming what I set up is up to your quality standards? If you set it up, then found that it was approximately as easy to maintain non-free separately as it is in Debian, I'd be very surprised, and I'd definitely re-evaluate my take on the matter. If it turns out to be *easier* to maintain non-free debs outside Debian, or if it turns out they can be *better* maintained outside Debian (or both), I'd come close to being forced to revise my view. Some non-obvious, but non-trivial, concerns are managing new maintainers and managing license evaluation. OTOH, I also think there's also a lot of value in having non-free in Debian as a way to encourage non-free authors to free up their works. I don't think the hypothesised chances of improving this by removing non-free from Debian are likely to pan out at all, and I've seen no evidence at all to support them. [ I'm not currently saying I will set up nonfree.org, I don't currently have a machine to do it on, for example. Consider it a hypothetical, with a reasonable chance. And I don't think I'd want to host closed-source commercial software, like our ancient jdk's, communicator, acrobat reader, etc. ] It'd be very hard to convince me that a non-free archive that didn't host everything that's currently in non-free was as good as what we've currently got. Maybe if you had more recent versions of the jdk, or came to an arrangement to get some software that's not packaged at all atm -- say the proprietary RealPlayer codecs? -- then that might work. 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 Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote: and thus [go a long way] towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want to setup such an archive. If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with BTS, signed uploads, mailing lists, etc., would you support the non-free GR, assuming what I set up is up to your quality standards? If you set it up, then found that it was approximately as easy to maintain non-free separately as it is in Debian, I'd be very surprised, and I'd definitely re-evaluate my take on the matter. If it turns out to be *easier* to maintain non-free debs outside Debian, or if it turns out they can be *better* maintained outside Debian (or both), I'd come close to being forced to revise my view. For some documentation non-free .debs, there is possibly little need for long term maintenance and they could be downloaded from e.g. W3C as an alternative documentation format. Having them served from Debian servers is nice to have but non-essential. If they need changing, then the originators could change them - there would be a problem if the Debian-compatible packages were unwittingly carrying out of date docs, for example Some non-obvious, but non-trivial, concerns are managing new maintainers and managing license evaluation. License evaluation will still carry on on debian-legal :) OTOH, I also think there's also a lot of value in having non-free in Debian as a way to encourage non-free authors to free up their works. I don't think the hypothesised chances of improving this by removing non-free from Debian are likely to pan out at all, and I've seen no evidence at all to support them. I can see your point. There should be no harm in Dale's suggestion to set up nonfree.org initially. [ I'm not currently saying I will set up nonfree.org, I don't currently have a machine to do it on, for example. Consider it a hypothetical, with a reasonable chance. And I don't think I'd want to host closed-source commercial software, like our ancient jdk's, communicator, acrobat reader, etc. ] It'd be very hard to convince me that a non-free archive that didn't host everything that's currently in non-free was as good as what we've currently got. Maybe if you had more recent versions of the jdk, or came to an arrangement to get some software that's not packaged at all atm -- say the proprietary RealPlayer codecs? -- then that might work. People like Lindows/Libranet/Xandros might be willing to put some of this into a nonfree.org repository as a way of paying back Debian? There is no canonical reason why Debian maintainers _must_ maintain everything in non-free / everyone who maintains a non-DFSG-free package _must_ be a Debian maintainer. Apropos the multiplicity of unofficial apt sources and the problems of untrusted repositories: [random personal idea] it might be a good idea to create a Debian backports section and fold some of these back into a Debian server. [There's no obvious reason why backports could not be hosted by Debian since they are a service to the Debian community in at least the same way as contrib.] Andy
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook. Ah yes. The opposition is obviously not dedicated, interested in dialogue like we are. They are just fillibustering to prevent the righteous from getting their message out to the unwashed masses. Another superb example of argument by rediculing your opposition, often by imputing underhanded motivation to their cause. manoj -- The meek are contesting the will. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:22:57PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote: But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So, currently, some of the contents is very much not free. Let's remove it, it is old and obsolete, and kaffe is probably a better java solution than this right now anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the founding of the project; and But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software (documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually it will be replaced or relicensed, but this will take a while. To effect this, a new version of the Social Contract with only clauses 1 through 4 is hereby issued. The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3 years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for their non-free packages. Note that nothing in here changes our promise to support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, which is in clause 1 of the Social Contract. Of course, this means that the FSF-provided documentation will mostly not be available in Debian. *Provided Debian decides to actually FOLLOW its Social Contract after Sarge, that is.) I can't support any proposal to remove non-free until the issue of non-free material in main is dealt with properly. Which it has *not* been. I encourage everyone to shelve these proposals and deal with the problem of making 'main' free first. :-P
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from a meaningful position. It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote could give more valuable input, but I cannot come up with a nice set of questions which are not suggestive. Anybody? Michael -- 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 02:21:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: 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. You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have now though. So the list of disadvantages of removing non-free is growing while the list of advantages remains small and almost unstated. Wasn't it you who pointed this out about a week ago? I admit that this is one of the few disadvantages. But it probably would take an analysis of the BTS-data to see how big the impact is really. Anyway, I don't see how the list grows, as this is an old argument. Maybe he was hoping you wouldn't notice. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Religion is excellent stuff for Debian GNU/Linux | keeping common people quiet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Napoleon Bonaparte http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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. I think that's a hasty conclusion. I think the fact that no one's willing to setup a working non-free archive just for the hell of it is the consequence of two factors: * Most of the people who want Debian to drop non-free aren't interested in having anything to do with it; and * Most of the people who want Debian to keep non-free don't see any need to concretize potential changes to status quo. This is the catch-22 I posited earlier, and for which I was attacked. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure [EMAIL PROTECTED] | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? It's not a question of ability; it's a question of willingness. Volunteers tend to work on things they're actually interested in. 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. 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, You appear to be putting words into people's mouths. There are many possible explanations why they wouldn't to work on it, the most likely one to my mind being the primary dynamic of volunteer work. For the greater good arguments can only do so much to compel people to work on things that don't directly interest them. For example, experience would seem to tell us that resolving release-critical bugs across the entire distribution isn't the sort of task that a large number of our developers find innately fun, else we wouldn't hear repeated and strident pleas for our Release Manager to work on that task instead of others. even though it supports the arguments they're making and would aid in a goal they seem to think is desirable. Likewise, the people who oppose the proposed GR are quite likely not to do so, because it undermines the arguments they're making, and would aid in a goal they don't think is desirable. The setup of such a thing thus asks one group to overcome its indifference, another to overcome its fear, and both to be more altruistic than we might reasonably expect. This seems to be like exactly the sort of difficult case that is best handled with a General Resolution, and far from being a whimsical issue, as Manoj has belittled it[1]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00142.html -- G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux |like in a spotlight. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook. -- 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: 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. :) I disagree. One of Mr. Towns's tenets is that non-free *is* part of Debian, just not part of the main distribution[1]. Some of our users, perhaps most, seem to perceive it that way as well[2]. They don't come to us through our Social Contract, they come to us through our works. Our Social Contract and our works should be more consistent with each other. One or both can be changed to realize that state of affairs. [1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- G. Branden Robinson| The National Security Agency is Debian GNU/Linux | working on the Fourth Amendment [EMAIL PROTECTED] | thing. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge. Not at the level of main. At what level *do* we provide it? However, we can be fairly confident that a DD won't introduce a deliberate security flaw into non-free. How much does that really buy us? Isn't that kind of a cold comfort? It didn't take the introduction of deliberate security flaw into main to disrupt this entire project[1], resulting in a loss of services to the developers that still hasn't been completely rectified, and probably won't be[2]. You can perhaps be forgiving for not noticing this event, given the extent of your level of participation in the Project[3]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200311/msg00011.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200312/msg1.html [3] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from a meaningful position. It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote could give more valuable input, but I cannot come up with a nice set of questions which are not suggestive. Anybody? I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free, per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes? As vast majority want non-free gone - let's drop it, or non-free takes 2% of our effort, and is valuable to 20% of our users? - definitely keep it! Some more detailed polling might be interesting, though. I'd be interested in knowing the answers to questions like: (a) Do you use non-free/proprietary software on a Debian system? (b) Do you use packages from the non-free component in Debian? (c) If you answered yes to (b), would any of the following cause you to seriously consider switching to a different distribution: (1) debs currently in non-free were maintained at roughly the same level by a different group, and dropped by Debian itself? (2) debs currently in non-free were only available from a variety of third party sites (but accessible by apt), not necessarily with any relationship to the Debian project at all, and not necessarily reimplementing all the features Debian has (bug tracking, mirrors, etc)? (3) if bugs in free software that Debian distributes that only affect non-free software are given a lower priority, or are not fixed at all? (4) if no non-free debs were available, but a majority of non-free software for Linux was available in the form of LSB packages, and work correctly on Debian when installed with alien? (5) if the only way to install non-free software on Debian is by using alien on packages for other distributions and hoping, or building the package yourself? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: [Dale Martin wrote:] The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the DFSG if we drop non-free. 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. Okay. 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. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this observation has to do with the comment by Dale Martin, which I have restored above, and which prompted your statement, which I challenged. I don't see Dale citing anyone as a moral authority. Perhaps you could draw me a map? -- 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
I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:22:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook. Actually talking about the topic at hand is against the filibustering playbook. Indicating that people trying to hold a relevant discussion are filibustering is just dishonest. This is doubly underlined by the fact that, currently, nothing procedurally would be different if nobody was carrying on any discussion at all. For people who aren't familiar with USA politics: the US Senate has established a requirement of requiring unanimous consent on a variety of procedural issues. Sometimes people abuse this when a vote is called for by talking for hours -- even days -- about whatever comes into their head. http://www.netlobby.com/hcwz4.htm for a larger description of the surrounding process. -- Raul There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you. -- Will Rogers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote: If you == Dale E Martin, you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't turn a useful discussion into a personal attack. What, Craig Sanders turn a useful discussion into a personal attack? What a baseless[1] accusation! [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/debian-devel-200011/msg00886.html http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0201/0136.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/debian-devel-200011/msg01055.html http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148 (Hmm, not too much recently. Maybe he has mellowed. :) ) -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: 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. Then I must not be talking about you. There have been other contributions to this discussion that ridiculed the very concept 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?] No, but if your opposition is intractable, perhaps a better use of your time would be to persuade the fence-sitters to come to your side of the dispute. 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. Why are you rebutting a position I do not hold, and did not even put forward? There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. You're free to draw your own conclusions from the average length of the threads on this subject over the past four years. -- G. Branden Robinson| That's the saving grace of humor: Debian GNU/Linux | if you fail, no one is laughing at [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- A. Whitney Brown signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free, per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes? Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users whether they think 'Debian distributes non-free' or 'non-free is part of Debian' or 'non-free is not part of the Debian distribution, but they have it on their servers nevertheless'. Something along those lines. In other words, what is the public view on the relationship between the Debian project and its non-free part on the debian.org servers? Some more detailed polling might be interesting, though. I'd be interested in knowing the answers to questions like: (a) Do you use non-free/proprietary software on a Debian system? (b) Do you use packages from the non-free component in Debian? (c) If you answered yes to (b), would any of the following cause you to seriously consider switching to a different distribution: (1) debs currently in non-free were maintained at roughly the same level by a different group, and dropped by Debian itself? (2) debs currently in non-free were only available from a variety of third party sites (but accessible by apt), not necessarily with any relationship to the Debian project at all, and not necessarily reimplementing all the features Debian has (bug tracking, mirrors, etc)? (3) if bugs in free software that Debian distributes that only affect non-free software are given a lower priority, or are not fixed at all? (4) if no non-free debs were available, but a majority of non-free software for Linux was available in the form of LSB packages, and work correctly on Debian when installed with alien? (5) if the only way to install non-free software on Debian is by using alien on packages for other distributions and hoping, or building the package yourself? That would definetely be useful. But we'd probably only have one shot at a poll. There seem to be too many options and text in your poll to make it on DebianPlanet verbatim in the current form. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:19:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry if this grates, but I've heard these proposals over and over in the last few months, and it's getting old. I've been hearing these proposals over and over for the past four YEARS, at least. I think Debian should either give itself over completely to RMS's GNU Project, or acknowledge that there is some value in software that's not completely free in the Debian sense. I think that's a false alternative. I do not think the Debian Project should subordinate itself to the Free Software Foundation. I am also quite comfortable with the fact that many people find value in non-DFSG-free software, and moreover that different people find value in it in different ways. Both of these are completely to the question of whether it should be part of Debian's mission to distribute non-DFSG-free software. People can feel a certain way about any of these propositions without a particular position on the others being consequent. I submit, therefore, that you have failed to correctly identify the point of contention. It seems I recall recently a movement to remove the RFCs from Debian, because they were not free in the Debian sense. Many non-DFSG-free RFCs were removed from packages in main, because according to our Social Contract and the Debian Policy Manual, non-DFSG-free works are not permitted in main. Many DFSG-free RFCs (believe it or not, such things do exist) remained in main. How absurd must we get before people come to their senses? I don't personally find ridicule very persuasive. You're going to end up driving people away from Debian proper and into other distros. Possibly. It is not an aspect of Debian's mission to be the most popular distribution in the world. In fact, in our Social Contract we specifically encourage the development of other distributions: we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us.. I love the Debian distro, but I swear sometimes Debianistas act like MacIntosh people, with this attitude that they're superior to everyone else, and that only they have the One True Vision (tm). I guess I shouldn't reply to this paragraph. :) $ cat /proc/cpuinfo cpu : 740/750 temperature : 11-13 C (uncalibrated) clock : 400MHz revision: 130.2 (pvr 0008 8202) bogomips: 796.26 machine : PowerMac1,1 motherboard : PowerMac1,1 MacRISC Power Macintosh detected as : 66 (BlueWhite G3) pmac flags : L2 cache: 1024K unified memory : 1024MB pmac-generation : NewWorld Not that this will make any difference whatsoever. I just get tired of hearing this almost religious fervor about Debian's definition of free software. Your beef is probably with the Social Contract, which all Debian Developers agree to abide by when they join the Project. It says: We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is free below. What's below is the DFSG, which is Debian's primary tool for distinguishing free software from non-free software. Strictly speaking, Debian doesn't *have* a definition of Free Software. Our determinations are more organic processes, which you can observe in action on the debian-legal mailing list. In any event, if you wish to reduce the importance of the DFSG to the Debian Project and the actions of our developers, the best course of action is probably to propose the amendment or repeal of the Social Contract on the debian-project list. Sometimes I think I'm listening to RMS. Is that a good or a bad thing?[1] Okay, flame away, folks. I will leave that task to others. [1] fnvq n thl jubz EZF pynvzrq ur jnf abg ba fcrnxvat grezf jvgu, ohg url, jub nz V gb zrff jvgu fbzr TE bccbaragf' oynpx-naq-juvgr ivrj bs gur jbeyq? :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR. -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them, for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions. I'll explain more below. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: [Dale Martin wrote:] Note: although Branden has inserted this text from Dale Martin in a fashion which makes it appear that I had been quoting it and lost the attribution, that is not the case. In the article where I did quote this material, I attributed it to Dale Martin. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00157.html When Branden went back and clipped it, he overlooked the attribution. Branden did, however, thoughtfully add to the begining of each line. Perhaps Branden was confused because Dale lost the attribution on the became first paragraph of the above referenced message. [dale] The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the DFSG if we drop non-free. [raul] 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? [raul] 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. [branden] Okay. 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. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this observation has to do with the comment by Dale Martin, which I have restored above, and which prompted your statement, which I challenged. I don't see Dale citing anyone as a moral authority. Perhaps you could draw me a map? Here's the relevant quote, again: We have something called the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the DFSG if we drop non-free. Ok, I make a couple deductive leaps -- you might not follow them. First, I assume that where he said will only support he meant will support only. If I don't rephrase it that way, he would be saying that we're not supporting DFSG software now. Second, I assume that there is some reason for we ... will support only ... DFSG to be a relevant goal. By context, I assume that this is because the document in which DFSG appeared says things which might be interpreted as stating that as our goal. Is that good enough of a map for you, or do I need to break it down further? -- 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: 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. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Then I must not be talking about you. There have been other contributions to this discussion that ridiculed the very concept of voting on this. Ok, sorry. I thought the presence of my name meant that you were talking about me. 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. Why are you rebutting a position I do not hold, and did not even put forward? I couldn't come up with any other interpretation of your statement which makes as much sense. There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. You're free to draw your own conclusions from the average length of the threads on this subject over the past four years. I just did. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote: But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So, currently, some of the contents is very much not free. -- 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 10:04:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them. FWIW, in Australia that's not the case -- the copying that you do to run the program (ie, disk to memory) will probably be considered copyright infringement if it's against the express wishes of the copyright holder. (Actually, this is still somewhat questionable, and possibly one of the issues on appeal to the High Court; but it is explicitly listed that way in the legislation) 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 Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote: Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian's not 100% non-free software, though, which makes the claim that: So the only important question is: do you want to work on a free distribution or a proprietary one? Right now you are working on a proprietary one. at least as disingenuous as the claim that Debian's 100% free software. 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 Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? It's not a question of ability; it's a question of willingness. Volunteers tend to work on things they're actually interested in. 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. 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, You appear to be putting words into people's mouths. There are many possible explanations why they wouldn't to work on it, the most likely one to my mind being the primary dynamic of volunteer work. For the greater good arguments can only do so much to compel people to work on things that don't directly interest them. For example, experience would seem to tell us that resolving release-critical bugs across the entire distribution isn't the sort of task that a large number of our developers find innately fun, else we wouldn't hear repeated and strident pleas for our Release Manager to work on that task instead of others. even though it supports the arguments they're making and would aid in a goal they seem to think is desirable. Likewise, the people who oppose the proposed GR are quite likely not to do so, because it undermines the arguments they're making, and would aid in a goal they don't think is desirable. The setup of such a thing thus asks one group to overcome its indifference, another to overcome its fear, and both to be more altruistic than we might reasonably expect. This seems to be like exactly the sort of difficult case that is best handled with a General Resolution, and far from being a whimsical issue, as Manoj has belittled it[1]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00142.html -- G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux |like in a spotlight. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote: If you == Dale E Martin, you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't turn a useful discussion into a personal attack. What, Craig Sanders turn a useful discussion into a personal attack? What a baseless[1] accusation! [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/debian-devel-200011/msg00886.html http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0201/0136.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/debian-devel-200011/msg01055.html http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148 (Hmm, not too much recently. Maybe he has mellowed. :) ) -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge. Not at the level of main. At what level *do* we provide it? However, we can be fairly confident that a DD won't introduce a deliberate security flaw into non-free. How much does that really buy us? Isn't that kind of a cold comfort? It didn't take the introduction of deliberate security flaw into main to disrupt this entire project[1], resulting in a loss of services to the developers that still hasn't been completely rectified, and probably won't be[2]. You can perhaps be forgiving for not noticing this event, given the extent of your level of participation in the Project[3]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200311/msg00011.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200312/msg1.html [3] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: [Dale Martin wrote:] The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the DFSG if we drop non-free. 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. Okay. 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. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this observation has to do with the comment by Dale Martin, which I have restored above, and which prompted your statement, which I challenged. I don't see Dale citing anyone as a moral authority. Perhaps you could draw me a map? -- 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
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them, for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions. I'll explain more below. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: [Dale Martin wrote:] Note: although Branden has inserted this text from Dale Martin in a fashion which makes it appear that I had been quoting it and lost the attribution, that is not the case. In the article where I did quote this material, I attributed it to Dale Martin. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00157.html When Branden went back and clipped it, he overlooked the attribution. Branden did, however, thoughtfully add to the begining of each line. Perhaps Branden was confused because Dale lost the attribution on the became first paragraph of the above referenced message. [dale] The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the DFSG if we drop non-free. [raul] 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? [raul] 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. [branden] Okay. 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. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this observation has to do with the comment by Dale Martin, which I have restored above, and which prompted your statement, which I challenged. I don't see Dale citing anyone as a moral authority. Perhaps you could draw me a map? Here's the relevant quote, again: We have something called the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the DFSG if we drop non-free. Ok, I make a couple deductive leaps -- you might not follow them. First, I assume that where he said will only support he meant will support only. If I don't rephrase it that way, he would be saying that we're not supporting DFSG software now. Second, I assume that there is some reason for we ... will support only ... DFSG to be a relevant goal. By context, I assume that this is because the document in which DFSG appeared says things which might be interpreted as stating that as our goal. Is that good enough of a map for you, or do I need to break it down further? -- Raul
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from a meaningful position. It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote could give more valuable input, but I cannot come up with a nice set of questions which are not suggestive. Anybody? Michael
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: 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. :) I disagree. One of Mr. Towns's tenets is that non-free *is* part of Debian, just not part of the main distribution[1]. Some of our users, perhaps most, seem to perceive it that way as well[2]. They don't come to us through our Social Contract, they come to us through our works. Our Social Contract and our works should be more consistent with each other. One or both can be changed to realize that state of affairs. [1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- G. Branden Robinson| The National Security Agency is Debian GNU/Linux | working on the Fourth Amendment [EMAIL PROTECTED] | thing. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge. On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Not at the level of main. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:37:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: At what level *do* we provide it? At the level of non-free, duh. Or: if I understood the problem you were trying to solve, I could probably give you a more pertinent answer. However, we can be fairly confident that a DD won't introduce a deliberate security flaw into non-free. How much does that really buy us? Isn't that kind of a cold comfort? Us as developers? Or us as users? For contrast, I can go out to apt-get.org, poke around at the resulting archives, and find a guy who has a warez directory sitting beside his debian stuff. I don't *know* that he is doing anything unethical, but I'm just a touch uneasy about installing anything I download from his site. It didn't take the introduction of deliberate security flaw into main to disrupt this entire project[1], resulting in a loss of services to the developers that still hasn't been completely rectified, and probably won't be[2]. Yeah, things could be worse. You can perhaps be forgiving for not noticing this event, given the extent of your level of participation in the Project[3]. Um... I've been hit by that outage too. And I am reasonbly certain you know that because you posted a reply to my message which mentioned that. However, I suppose you're not engaging in ad hominem because technically you didn't present a logical argument. -- Raul
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook. -- 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: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR. -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: 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. Then I must not be talking about you. There have been other contributions to this discussion that ridiculed the very concept 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?] No, but if your opposition is intractable, perhaps a better use of your time would be to persuade the fence-sitters to come to your side of the dispute. 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. Why are you rebutting a position I do not hold, and did not even put forward? There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. You're free to draw your own conclusions from the average length of the threads on this subject over the past four years. -- G. Branden Robinson| That's the saving grace of humor: Debian GNU/Linux | if you fail, no one is laughing at [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- A. Whitney Brown signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:19:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry if this grates, but I've heard these proposals over and over in the last few months, and it's getting old. I've been hearing these proposals over and over for the past four YEARS, at least. I think Debian should either give itself over completely to RMS's GNU Project, or acknowledge that there is some value in software that's not completely free in the Debian sense. I think that's a false alternative. I do not think the Debian Project should subordinate itself to the Free Software Foundation. I am also quite comfortable with the fact that many people find value in non-DFSG-free software, and moreover that different people find value in it in different ways. Both of these are completely to the question of whether it should be part of Debian's mission to distribute non-DFSG-free software. People can feel a certain way about any of these propositions without a particular position on the others being consequent. I submit, therefore, that you have failed to correctly identify the point of contention. It seems I recall recently a movement to remove the RFCs from Debian, because they were not free in the Debian sense. Many non-DFSG-free RFCs were removed from packages in main, because according to our Social Contract and the Debian Policy Manual, non-DFSG-free works are not permitted in main. Many DFSG-free RFCs (believe it or not, such things do exist) remained in main. How absurd must we get before people come to their senses? I don't personally find ridicule very persuasive. You're going to end up driving people away from Debian proper and into other distros. Possibly. It is not an aspect of Debian's mission to be the most popular distribution in the world. In fact, in our Social Contract we specifically encourage the development of other distributions: we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us.. I love the Debian distro, but I swear sometimes Debianistas act like MacIntosh people, with this attitude that they're superior to everyone else, and that only they have the One True Vision (tm). I guess I shouldn't reply to this paragraph. :) $ cat /proc/cpuinfo cpu : 740/750 temperature : 11-13 C (uncalibrated) clock : 400MHz revision: 130.2 (pvr 0008 8202) bogomips: 796.26 machine : PowerMac1,1 motherboard : PowerMac1,1 MacRISC Power Macintosh detected as : 66 (BlueWhite G3) pmac flags : L2 cache: 1024K unified memory : 1024MB pmac-generation : NewWorld Not that this will make any difference whatsoever. I just get tired of hearing this almost religious fervor about Debian's definition of free software. Your beef is probably with the Social Contract, which all Debian Developers agree to abide by when they join the Project. It says: We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is free below. What's below is the DFSG, which is Debian's primary tool for distinguishing free software from non-free software. Strictly speaking, Debian doesn't *have* a definition of Free Software. Our determinations are more organic processes, which you can observe in action on the debian-legal mailing list. In any event, if you wish to reduce the importance of the DFSG to the Debian Project and the actions of our developers, the best course of action is probably to propose the amendment or repeal of the Social Contract on the debian-project list. Sometimes I think I'm listening to RMS. Is that a good or a bad thing?[1] Okay, flame away, folks. I will leave that task to others. [1] fnvq n thl jubz EZF pynvzrq ur jnf abg ba fcrnxvat grezf jvgu, ohg url, jub nz V gb zrff jvgu fbzr TE bccbaragf' oynpx-naq-juvgr ivrj bs gur jbeyq? :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote: But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So, currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free, per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes? Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users whether they think 'Debian distributes non-free' or 'non-free is part of Debian' or 'non-free is not part of the Debian distribution, but they have it on their servers nevertheless'. Something along those lines. In other words, what is the public view on the relationship between the Debian project and its non-free part on the debian.org servers? Some more detailed polling might be interesting, though. I'd be interested in knowing the answers to questions like: (a) Do you use non-free/proprietary software on a Debian system? (b) Do you use packages from the non-free component in Debian? (c) If you answered yes to (b), would any of the following cause you to seriously consider switching to a different distribution: (1) debs currently in non-free were maintained at roughly the same level by a different group, and dropped by Debian itself? (2) debs currently in non-free were only available from a variety of third party sites (but accessible by apt), not necessarily with any relationship to the Debian project at all, and not necessarily reimplementing all the features Debian has (bug tracking, mirrors, etc)? (3) if bugs in free software that Debian distributes that only affect non-free software are given a lower priority, or are not fixed at all? (4) if no non-free debs were available, but a majority of non-free software for Linux was available in the form of LSB packages, and work correctly on Debian when installed with alien? (5) if the only way to install non-free software on Debian is by using alien on packages for other distributions and hoping, or building the package yourself? That would definetely be useful. But we'd probably only have one shot at a poll. There seem to be too many options and text in your poll to make it on DebianPlanet verbatim in the current form. Michael
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. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Then I must not be talking about you. There have been other contributions to this discussion that ridiculed the very concept of voting on this. Ok, sorry. I thought the presence of my name meant that you were talking about me. 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. Why are you rebutting a position I do not hold, and did not even put forward? I couldn't come up with any other interpretation of your statement which makes as much sense. There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. You're free to draw your own conclusions from the average length of the threads on this subject over the past four years. I just did. -- Raul
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: 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. You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have now though. So the list of disadvantages of removing non-free is growing while the list of advantages remains small and almost unstated. Wasn't it you who pointed this out about a week ago? I admit that this is one of the few disadvantages. But it probably would take an analysis of the BTS-data to see how big the impact is really. Anyway, I don't see how the list grows, as this is an old argument. Maybe he was hoping you wouldn't notice. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Religion is excellent stuff for Debian GNU/Linux | keeping common people quiet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Napoleon Bonaparte http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from a meaningful position. It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote could give more valuable input, but I cannot come up with a nice set of questions which are not suggestive. Anybody? I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free, per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes? As vast majority want non-free gone - let's drop it, or non-free takes 2% of our effort, and is valuable to 20% of our users? - definitely keep it! Some more detailed polling might be interesting, though. I'd be interested in knowing the answers to questions like: (a) Do you use non-free/proprietary software on a Debian system? (b) Do you use packages from the non-free component in Debian? (c) If you answered yes to (b), would any of the following cause you to seriously consider switching to a different distribution: (1) debs currently in non-free were maintained at roughly the same level by a different group, and dropped by Debian itself? (2) debs currently in non-free were only available from a variety of third party sites (but accessible by apt), not necessarily with any relationship to the Debian project at all, and not necessarily reimplementing all the features Debian has (bug tracking, mirrors, etc)? (3) if bugs in free software that Debian distributes that only affect non-free software are given a lower priority, or are not fixed at all? (4) if no non-free debs were available, but a majority of non-free software for Linux was available in the form of LSB packages, and work correctly on Debian when installed with alien? (5) if the only way to install non-free software on Debian is by using alien on packages for other distributions and hoping, or building the package yourself? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge. We have infrastructure for it, we don't make use of it at the moment. I believe most (if not all) of the other issues could be solved by running an Alioth-like service. I don't think Debian running an Alioth-like service would be any better than anyone else running an Alioth-like service (ie, it'd have all the same benefits and problems as nonfree.org). Am I wrong? I proposed that several times on this list, but never got a feedback. Is this so far off? Or so clear without ambiguity? Cheers, aj Thank you. That's the most enlightening exchange I've yet seen in this thread, precisely because of what's left unsaid. -- G. Branden Robinson|The best place to hide something is Debian GNU/Linux |in documentation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Ethan Benson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:30:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have now though. So the list of disadvantages of removing non-free is growing while the list of advantages remains small and almost unstated. 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 Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: 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. You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have now though. So the list of disadvantages of removing non-free is growing while the list of advantages remains small and almost unstated. Wasn't it you who pointed this out about a week ago? I admit that this is one of the few disadvantages. But it probably would take an analysis of the BTS-data to see how big the impact is really. Anyway, I don't see how the list grows, as this is an old argument. Michael -- 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 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. 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 have no interest in a non-free archive, and besides, if I find something Debian is doing to be distasteful, what makes you think that me doing it personally would be any less objectionable to me? 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. First of all, logically speaking, any possible contradiction between different someone makes has no bearing on deciding whether either of them is true. Now then, I don't see a contradiction at all. For those people that value non-free, I can suggest an alternative solution that would make them happy, and which I find *LESS* objectionable than having non-free as part of Debian. That is, to me, a gain. -- John -- 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 04:40:32PM -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. On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: 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. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:29:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: You appear to be grasping. And here I thought I was answering a specific question. No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being offered as unsatisfactory. Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy explicitly. What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? Me? In my case, a project would be comparable to non-free, if there's a reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. I was unaware that apt-ftparchive was difficult to master. -- G. Branden Robinson| If you're handsome, it's flirting. Debian GNU/Linux | If you're a troll, it's sexual [EMAIL PROTECTED] | harassment. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Carlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
And here I thought I was answering a specific question. On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being offered as unsatisfactory. I did? Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was made that outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network: I confessed ignorance, and asked for a list of these groups. And people volunteered a few examples. And I considered them in the context of that original statement. And, in general, either [a] the software was not well integrated, or [b] the outside group wrote the entirety of the software from scratch (or both, but let's just call that a logical or). Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy explicitly. Except it was somebody else's point, so it's his parameters which are significant. What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? Me? In my case, a project would be comparable to non-free, if there's a reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. I was unaware that apt-ftparchive was difficult to master. By use I meant more than install. Yes, I did say repository, but I meant to include the things in the repository as well. I'd apologize for my poor phrasing, but I have this sneaking suspicion you're rather pleased with the result. So, instead: enjoy. -- 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 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. There are two classes of people who are able to setup nonfree.org. One is the class of people who like having non-free around in Debian. The other is the class of people who don't like having non-free around in Debian. If it's true that setting up a nonfree.org would go a long way to proving it is possible [to separate non-free and Debian], and thus [go a long way] towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want to setup such an archive. That's a basic utilitarian principle: the act of setting up non-free.org is a Good Thing if on balance the results are Good. I have no interest in a non-free archive, and besides, if I find something Debian is doing to be distasteful, what makes you think that me doing it personally would be any less objectionable to me? You could set it up as a proof of concept, then offer to hand the keys over later. Now then, I don't see a contradiction at all. For those people that value non-free, I can suggest an alternative solution that would make them happy, and which I find *LESS* objectionable than having non-free as part of Debian. That is, to me, a gain. The problem is the only people who think it'd make them happy are the ones that don't think non-free is any good at all -- and on a personal level, they seem to be of the opinion that they'd personally find nonfree.org annoying too. 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
Can a Debian user make a comment here? I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss: Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. I repeated that statement because you developers floating around up here in legalistic-definition land are missing the point. Out here in the real world, if Debian servers are distributing non-free software, and more importantly, if Debian installer software by default conspiciously offers to install that non-free software onto Debian user's systems, then Debian as a whole is non-free in the eyes of 99.999% of it's users. RMS is not being pedantic on this point, he's being extremely realistic. You folks can sit up here all day long and define different theoretical definitions about how this free part of Debian is really Debian and this non-free part of Debian is not really Debian but to us real human beings it's all Debian, see? LOGIC: IF you think that Debian should by definition be a 100% free distribution: THEN kick non-free (and contrib) off of Debian servers and out of the installer's default options. PERIOD. (AND all the arguments about how much trouble this may or may not cause become irrelevant). That's reality. So the only important question is: do you want to work on a free distribution or a proprietary one? Right now you are working on a proprietary one. Yes I am defining a proprietary distribution as a distribution containing any non-free software and I'm sure some of the language lawyers here can spend hours proving why I'm right about that. Shawn Yarbrough [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ http://people.debian.org/%7Ebranden/ |-- Voltaire -- 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 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote: Can a Debian user make a comment here? I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss: Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. I repeated that statement because you developers floating around up here in legalistic-definition land are missing the point. Out here in the real world, if Debian servers are distributing non-free software, and more importantly, if Debian installer software by default conspiciously offers to install that non-free software onto Debian user's systems, then Debian as a whole is non-free in the eyes of 99.999% of it's users. RMS is not being pedantic on this point, he's being extremely realistic. You folks can sit up here all day long and define different theoretical definitions about how this free part of Debian is really Debian and this non-free part of Debian is not really Debian but to us real human beings it's all Debian, see? But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Note that, at the moment, some of the content which RMS is responsible for distributing we redistribute from non-free. Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free, and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example, perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed to all users. And, if it would make people think a bit more before posting, maybe we should name it something other than non-free [though doing that right still probably means changing the social contract]. Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from a meaningful position. -- 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 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free, and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example, perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed to all users. I should clarify that: I'm talking about non-commercial use licenses. As near as I can tell, from reading 17 USC, [a] a non-commercial use clause in a copyright is an invalid clause, or [b] it's a clause which restricts distribution, not use. Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them. But a judge might possibly interepret distribution of software with a non-commercial use clause to a commercial institution as a violation of the copyright. Anyways, someone objected to that kind of software on the grounds that it was discriminatory, and so I picked it as an example of something we maybe shouldn't be distributing. [And, I picked stuff licensed under RMS's GFDL as an example of something we maybe should be distributing.] -- 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 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote: Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian's not 100% non-free software, though, which makes the claim that: So the only important question is: do you want to work on a free distribution or a proprietary one? Right now you are working on a proprietary one. at least as disingenuous as the claim that Debian's 100% free software. 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 Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:04:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them. FWIW, in Australia that's not the case -- the copying that you do to run the program (ie, disk to memory) will probably be considered copyright infringement if it's against the express wishes of the copyright holder. (Actually, this is still somewhat questionable, and possibly one of the issues on appeal to the High Court; but it is explicitly listed that way in the legislation) 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 Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. 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 have no interest in a non-free archive, and besides, if I find something Debian is doing to be distasteful, what makes you think that me doing it personally would be any less objectionable to me? 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. First of all, logically speaking, any possible contradiction between different someone makes has no bearing on deciding whether either of them is true. Now then, I don't see a contradiction at all. For those people that value non-free, I can suggest an alternative solution that would make them happy, and which I find *LESS* objectionable than having non-free as part of Debian. That is, to me, a gain. -- John
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:30:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have now though. So the list of disadvantages of removing non-free is growing while the list of advantages remains small and almost unstated. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: 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. You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have now though. So the list of disadvantages of removing non-free is growing while the list of advantages remains small and almost unstated. Wasn't it you who pointed this out about a week ago? I admit that this is one of the few disadvantages. But it probably would take an analysis of the BTS-data to see how big the impact is really. Anyway, I don't see how the list grows, as this is an old argument. Michael
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:40:32PM -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. On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: 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. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:29:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: You appear to be grasping. And here I thought I was answering a specific question. No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being offered as unsatisfactory. Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy explicitly. What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? Me? In my case, a project would be comparable to non-free, if there's a reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. I was unaware that apt-ftparchive was difficult to master. -- G. Branden Robinson| If you're handsome, it's flirting. Debian GNU/Linux | If you're a troll, it's sexual [EMAIL PROTECTED] | harassment. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Carlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote: Can a Debian user make a comment here? I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss: Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. I repeated that statement because you developers floating around up here in legalistic-definition land are missing the point. Out here in the real world, if Debian servers are distributing non-free software, and more importantly, if Debian installer software by default conspiciously offers to install that non-free software onto Debian user's systems, then Debian as a whole is non-free in the eyes of 99.999% of it's users. RMS is not being pedantic on this point, he's being extremely realistic. You folks can sit up here all day long and define different theoretical definitions about how this free part of Debian is really Debian and this non-free part of Debian is not really Debian but to us real human beings it's all Debian, see? But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Note that, at the moment, some of the content which RMS is responsible for distributing we redistribute from non-free. Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free, and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example, perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed to all users. And, if it would make people think a bit more before posting, maybe we should name it something other than non-free [though doing that right still probably means changing the social contract]. Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from a meaningful position. -- Raul
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free, and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example, perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed to all users. I should clarify that: I'm talking about non-commercial use licenses. As near as I can tell, from reading 17 USC, [a] a non-commercial use clause in a copyright is an invalid clause, or [b] it's a clause which restricts distribution, not use. Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them. But a judge might possibly interepret distribution of software with a non-commercial use clause to a commercial institution as a violation of the copyright. Anyways, someone objected to that kind of software on the grounds that it was discriminatory, and so I picked it as an example of something we maybe shouldn't be distributing. [And, I picked stuff licensed under RMS's GFDL as an example of something we maybe should be distributing.] -- Raul
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
And here I thought I was answering a specific question. On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being offered as unsatisfactory. I did? Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was made that outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network: I confessed ignorance, and asked for a list of these groups. And people volunteered a few examples. And I considered them in the context of that original statement. And, in general, either [a] the software was not well integrated, or [b] the outside group wrote the entirety of the software from scratch (or both, but let's just call that a logical or). Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy explicitly. Except it was somebody else's point, so it's his parameters which are significant. What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? Me? In my case, a project would be comparable to non-free, if there's a reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. I was unaware that apt-ftparchive was difficult to master. By use I meant more than install. Yes, I did say repository, but I meant to include the things in the repository as well. I'd apologize for my poor phrasing, but I have this sneaking suspicion you're rather pleased with the result. So, instead: enjoy. -- Raul
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: 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? I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with me, please at least argue with what I actually stated. There are two classes of people who are able to setup nonfree.org. One is the class of people who like having non-free around in Debian. The other is the class of people who don't like having non-free around in Debian. If it's true that setting up a nonfree.org would go a long way to proving it is possible [to separate non-free and Debian], and thus [go a long way] towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want to setup such an archive. That's a basic utilitarian principle: the act of setting up non-free.org is a Good Thing if on balance the results are Good. I have no interest in a non-free archive, and besides, if I find something Debian is doing to be distasteful, what makes you think that me doing it personally would be any less objectionable to me? You could set it up as a proof of concept, then offer to hand the keys over later. Now then, I don't see a contradiction at all. For those people that value non-free, I can suggest an alternative solution that would make them happy, and which I find *LESS* objectionable than having non-free as part of Debian. That is, to me, a gain. The problem is the only people who think it'd make them happy are the ones that don't think non-free is any good at all -- and on a personal level, they seem to be of the opinion that they'd personally find nonfree.org annoying too. 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
Can a Debian user make a comment here? I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss: Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software. I repeated that statement because you developers floating around up here in legalistic-definition land are missing the point. Out here in the real world, if Debian servers are distributing non-free software, and more importantly, if Debian installer software by default conspiciously offers to install that non-free software onto Debian user's systems, then Debian as a whole is non-free in the eyes of 99.999% of it's users. RMS is not being pedantic on this point, he's being extremely realistic. You folks can sit up here all day long and define different theoretical definitions about how this free part of Debian is really Debian and this non-free part of Debian is not really Debian but to us real human beings it's all Debian, see? LOGIC: IF you think that Debian should by definition be a 100% free distribution: THEN kick non-free (and contrib) off of Debian servers and out of the installer's default options. PERIOD. (AND all the arguments about how much trouble this may or may not cause become irrelevant). That's reality. So the only important question is: do you want to work on a free distribution or a proprietary one? Right now you are working on a proprietary one. Yes I am defining a proprietary distribution as a distribution containing any non-free software and I'm sure some of the language lawyers here can spend hours proving why I'm right about that. Shawn Yarbrough [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ http://people.debian.org/%7Ebranden/ |-- Voltaire
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]
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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 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 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 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 Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:11:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: But that's not true. The practical consequences are many: Debian ceases supporting every non-free package, non-free maintainers have to setup their own archives, contrib becomes at best much harder to support well and at worst unsupported. It would affect my contrib package (xtrs) not a whit. At the same time, I have no problem maintaining xtrs outside of the Debian Project if that is the will of the developers. Consider that many people outside the project consider non-free software to be important, The goal of the Debian project is not to do everything that is important. The goals of the Debian Project are Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software, We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community, Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software, and Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards. Well, not all of those are stated as goals, and the last one isn't even a sentence -- which should tell us something, but apparently doesn't. and that Debian's balanced stance on the matter -- make the distinction clear, but don't be otherwise prejudiced about them -- Of course we're prejudiced about them. We uphold and promote Free Software, and made a contract with the Free Software community. We made no contract with the Non-Free Software Community, if such a thing even exists. We value Free Software more highly than the alternative, and we always have -- and not just because it's easier to work with. -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
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. On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: 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. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:29:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: You appear to be grasping. And here I thought I was answering a specific question. 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? Me? In my case, a project would be comparable to non-free, if there's a reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. You need to identify traits other than something maintained by Debian, else you're begging the question. Ok, trivial. Long since done. -- Raul
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: 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
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:10:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: FWIW, I believe including rationale in the body of the resolution is sometimes important I'm not sure this issue Stop distributing non-free? (y/n) is one of those. In fact I'm pretty confident it isn't. -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein 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
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 aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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/
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
