On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:27:03PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote: > You said this: > > > > Very few Debian resources are spent on > > > > non-DFSG-free stuff. > My point is that multiplying a "very few resources" times two is still > "very small resources. I assumed you meant developer time and effort were > part of these resources.
I don't understand what you're multiplying by two.
I think it goes something like this:
Currently:
Time spent adminning the archive/etc with non-free: I
Time spent maintaining non-free packages: N
Time spent maintaining free packages: F
Remove non-free:
Time spent adminning the archive/etc without non-free: I-i
Time spent maintaining non-free packages in Debian: 0
Time spent maintaining non-free packages outside Debian: N+n
Time spent adminning infrastructure outside Debian: X
Time spent maintaining free packages: F+b
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.
Thanks to "b", we can assume the sums are the same:
I + N + F = I-i + 0 + N+n + X + F+b
0 = n + b - i + X
b = i - (n+X)
So the question is whether i > n+X. Personally, I think i is pretty small,
and X is likely to be comparatively large. Even if X is minimised, that's
just going to cause n to get larger, so I think you're doomed either way.
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.
> > Sure it is: the existance of good, doesn't require the complete
> > extermination of all evil. Likewise, the existance of 100% pure DFSG-free
> > software doesn't require the complete absence of non-free software.
> But for Debian to distribute 100% DFSG approved software it cannot
> distribute one non-free package.
That's not true: main is 100% DFSG approved software (if you want to quibble
about either open bugs, or GFDL docs, you can presumably accept that as a
hypothetical), but that we distribute non-free as well doesn't stop us
distributing main.
If that's not what you mean, then your sentence is equivalent to "For
debian not to distribute any non DFSG approved software, it cannot
distribute one non-free package", which is a tautology, which is to say,
meaningless.
Yes, some people want Debian not to distribute any non-free software. It's
meaningless to say that they want this because they don't want us to
distribute non-free software.
> The point of this proposal would seem to
> be to go to 100% DFSG software on Debian servers, so there is no confusion
> about what is and what is not part of the project. Agreed?
Well, no. If the issue was resolving confusion, we could just say "main
is 100% DFSG-free software; non-free isn't; both are part of the project;
we distribute both" and rewrite any confusing or misleading claims we
make elsewhere.
> > Some people see taking money for free software as hypocrisy too. Should
> > we therefore only allow paupers to develop Debian?
> If I'm taking a bunch of money from someone and developing DFSG software,
> it's hard to see how my actions hurt the project. On the other hand, if
> I'm developing (or packaging) something that is not DFSG compliant and
> injecting it into Debian, perhaps I _am_ hurting the end user depending on
> my licensing terms.
Unless you have a magic wand that requires the end user to use
your package against their wishes, it's hard to see how that's the
case. Otherwise, they can choose to pretend you'd never wrote or packaged
the software in the first place, and be just as happy as if that was
actually the case.
> > Personally, I think all those sort of benefits are outweighed by the
> > people who need to run proprietary software, and finding Debian lets them
> > do that very easily, are then able to see first hand the benefits of a
> > pure free software system. We've not been doing a very good job at
> > helping introduce those folks to free software, but I can only imagine it
> > getting worse if we decide to drop non-free completely.
> Spell it out for me, I'm not following why it would get worse. Sorry if
> I'm being dense.
Suppose there are three places that offer packages of some nifty new
piece of non-free software you want to try out. Which do you use? Do you
try all of them? What if you're using powerpc, and they only offer i386
and AMD64 debs? What if they don't work with this other non-free package
you've gotten from this other source over here because of a name clash?
What happens if the maintainer gets his internet account cancelled? How
about if you're overseas for a while and want to get a new update of the
package, but the mirror lag is too great?
There are plenty of ways in which Debian's support for non-free seems
likely to get worse, and afaics no ways in which support for using
non-free with Debian would improve by it not being in Debian anymore. The
conclusion seems obvious.
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
