Op 03-08-12 17:46, Daniel Kahn Gillmor schreef: > On 08/03/2012 05:19 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: >> First step could be to move everything from non-free and contrib to a >> repository of another organization, let's call it "debian-nonfree" (but >> we could also choose a name without "Debian" in it). > > section 5 of the Debian Social Contract explicitly says, under the > heading "Works that do not meet our free software standards": > >>> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do >>> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created >>> "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The >>> packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although >>> they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD >>> manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and >>> determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, >>> although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use >>> and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug >>> tracking system and mailing lists). > > http://www.debian.org/social_contract > >> I think only Debian DD's and DM's should be welcome as a member of this >> organization, so the quality of the packages in the repository is the >> same as in Debian. > > Every Debian Developer and Debian Maintainer has agreed to the DSC. > What you're proposing seems to strike out this final clause, or perhaps > (more minimally) to replace "support their use and provide > infrastructure" to "cooperate with nonfree.org, which supports their use > and provides infrastructure". Changes to the Social Contract happen > only as a result of a General Resolution. This is doable, but it needs > to be pretty well-justified.
When Debian moves the non-free parts to nonfree.org, this is a form of support too. >> In the statutes of the organization we could write that the organization >> will do what Debian decides. > > So the net change of this proposal is now that there need to be two sets > of infrastructure maintained, and there would be feature parity with > what currently exists. True. > Who is going to maintain the new set of infrastructure? I hope the same people who are doing the infrastructure of Debian. >> This should be only a little change, so the goal is not directly to come >> on the FSF-free list, only to make steps in this direction and to make >> Debian 100% open source. > > Debian is already 100% free software. In Debian there is a contrib and a non-free section. This is officially not a part of Debian, but in reality it is (in my opinion). I don't want to change that, but I want to "move it away" to another organisation. > Does it need to be open source too? :) Yes. > In your followup, you write: > >> In the beginning we could be 'friendly' to such a nonfree organization. >> E.g. make a disabled line in /etc/apt/sources.list and make references >> to it on debian.org etc. But it could be a release goal for Jessie +1 to >> remove those references. > > Currently, i believe a default install does not add the non-free apt > repo to sources.list unless the user explicitly requests it. So you're > actually proposing *adding* a reference to a non-free repo in the > default sources.list (albeit a commented-out one)? > > i'm not sure i see what the gain is here, but i can certainly see the > extra labor it sets up. So it seems like a bad tradeoff to me. can you > help me understand why it might be a better tradeoff than it appears? What I want is to make a user-friendly migration. You can do that with a commented-out line in sources.list, but you can do that on other ways too. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl _______________________________________________ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
