On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:17:17 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:58:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> > I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
>> > rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a
>> > business) it is actually less free than something without source
>> > (such as Netscape 4.7). The no discrimination clause in DFSG is
>> > an important one. Debian must be equally Free for all.
>>
>> Why must it? We have an area that's free for all: it's called
>> main. We have another area that contains stuff that's not free for
>> all, but that is useful and that we're allowed to distribute. If
>> you don't like the non-free stuff, then don't use it and don't
>> maintain it.
>>
>> Why do you find that solution so unacceptable that you think Debian
>> *must* do something else?
> As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
> our stated goals, users and free software.
I beg to differ. Indeed, the very reason for having non-free
is because the software performs a function that is useful to users,
despite no meeting our guidelines.
And it helps free software two fold: it a helps in
transitioning packages to free-er licenses (ncftp, qt, etc), and it
gets us a wider audience (people who would have not chosen Debian
without the support for the non-free stuff). Once in the fold, they
are exposed to the ideas of free software, they espouse, and
proselytize, Debian.
> Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to
> greatly moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to
> relicense their software under the GPL; it seems that the areas that
> we have been successful already are testament to what we have the
> potential to do were we to carry an even larger carrot and stick.
I kinda doubt that. Debian is does not carry that big a stick,
and the drop software from Debian is not as big a stick as Debian
labels software as non-free.
Everyone knows that Debian can't package all software there is
out there, so absence of the software reflects on the incompleteness
of Debian to the casual end user; having the software labelled as
non-free reflects on the software package.
> We are now long past the era where technical hurdles prevented
> spinning non-free off of Debian. We have a set of people that are
> capable of maintaining it by itself. We also have a situation where
Got anything to back this up? Who are these people? Do they
have the resources you say they are capable of marshalling?
manoj
--
You will remember something that you should not have forgotten.
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
