> Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on > non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and > bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance > work is non-free specific.
Yes, my point was that there would be little practical impact and you seem
to agree with that in part.
> Which means the only resources we can "concentrate" are our servers, not
> our developers' time, which means we get _no_ benefit from this, as far
> as I can see.
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.
> But that's not true. The practical consequences are many: Debian ceases
> supporting every non-free package,
(Which you argue above is a teeny part of the current archive.)
> non-free maintainers have to setup their own archives,
There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
see this as big stumbling block.
> contrib becomes at best much harder to support well and at worst
> unsupported.
The contrib issue is one that I have not mulled over too much. If we're
interested in "moral purity" (which really is what this is about I think -
as a project are we interested in it?), I suppose we'd ditch contrib too?
That's a real sticky one.
I've always viewed (most) people who develop for Debian participating in at
least one of the following camps:
- those interested in the philosphy of free software
- those interested in most technically excellent distribution
Some people are in both camps, I'd put myself in both. (I do use some
non-free software, btw, I would be impacted by it's removal.) In some
ways, "contrib" is an issue that puts these two viewpoints at odds. We
don't want to package non-free stuff, but on the other hand, if we don't we
can't have a coherent contrib section which would make us "technically not
excellent".
> Consider that many people outside the project consider non-free software
> to be important, and that Debian's balanced stance on the matter -- make
> the distinction clear, but don't be otherwise prejudiced about them --
> achieves all our goals.
It achieves all of the goals having to do with technical excellence, but
it's not necessarily adequate from the philosophical standpoint; it seems
to be viewed by some as hypocrisy. (See Richard Stallman's statements
about it from the past.) I wouldn't take that stance, but that's why the
issue keeps coming back up, IMHO.
One thing that noone has mentioned is that non-free has caused the project
to fall out of the good graces of the FSF to some degree. One benefit of
dropping it would be that Debian could be "the official distribution" of
the FSF. Whether that's desirable to the group as a whole or not is
another big can of worms. :-) But there is one practical benefit that
dropping non-free could have.
Take care,
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
