Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: > > > > > Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer > > > have access to Debianized packages of this non-free > > > software? These packages would simply have to be managed > > > outside of the official Debian infrastructure. > > > > Note the _have to_ above. > > Who will do this? > > Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project!
Thanks for adding to the load. My point is that I don't like a GR that relies on vapor-ware or vapor-support for the continued support of users who use contrib or non-free packages. Kiss those contrib packages goodbye too remember. > Anyway, > since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps > non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those > archives and the bug tracking system? Debian doesn't need extra resources for the current non-free archives. That's not the point. It's whether whether Debian can, it's whether it should. > > > not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot > > > of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will > > > eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK. > > > > Or when XForms goes DFSG-compliant. > > But there's already something missing. What about next year's > > great tool that we don't have a free replacement for? > > Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things > themselves can pay money to a consultant. Or simply install RedHat. > If there is enough interest, > they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If > users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should > everyone expect a free lunch? Debian is free. Why would our support of contrib or even non-free packages be charged for? > > > Other packages may > > > follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian. > > > > Why will this change? > > I don't understand your question. If a developer wants her software in > Debian, she might choose to write a DFSG compliant license. My point is this. Do you think the proposed change will further entice developers into licensing DFSG-compliant? > > > Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. > > > > Insider information? What makes you say this? > > Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license? > > Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but: > the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since, > KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant > unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the > code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that > debate. Out of date. The QPL is not compatible with the GPL, even if both licenses are DFSG-compliant. > There are many types of users that depend on Debian. Most of them probably > have a mixture of motives that include both the political (DFSG) and the > practical (apt rules!). However, the argument that Debian should be > worried about keeping all the users is not one that I personally buy. I'm worried about loosing contrib, waisting _more_ time supporting some non-free or contrib software, and the explosions of badly-made and incompatible deb packages that may result. -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/