Re: Removal of non-free
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:29:16AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > where it's reasonably justified; I think (though I wish it weren't true) > that some things like old RFCs are unlikely to be republished under a Free > license anytime soon (and some might never be, since the authors are dead; > Jon Postel, for example, is the author of many early RFCs). At least some early RFCs are free. You can see the bug on doc-rfc, which *still* hasn't been closed, and is *still* in main. -- Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams pgpFd17YsYeVK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removal of non-free
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:52:08AM -, MJ Ray wrote: > Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as > > a useful service. > > People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service. People could also provide everything else Debian does. That doesn't mean it's any less a useful service, or less in the interests of Free Software (after all, open standards are sort of crucial to interoperation...) > [...policy vs users?...] > > Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF > > of recently? > > I don't think so. Then I guess we disagree. > > Things shouldn't stay in non-free, no. [...] > > Would you support a "maximum length of stay" proposal for non-free? I would support a maximum length before re-evaluating whether something was worth keeping there. I think a lot of things persist well past the point where it's reasonably justified; I think (though I wish it weren't true) that some things like old RFCs are unlikely to be republished under a Free license anytime soon (and some might never be, since the authors are dead; Jon Postel, for example, is the author of many early RFCs). However, I think that set is also small, relatively static, and that the vast majority of non-free can and should be re-evaluated and re-justified periodically (periodicity up for discussion). -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpKfoHXC14rU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:54:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote: > >>Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 > >> of our Social Contract? > > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of > > non-free GR. > > Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"? The passage of a GR is probably the only means of reconsideration that would be honored by the Project as a whole, when it comes to a subject as laden with flamewar history as this one. -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgpIwXzZ1pUjT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of non-free GR. Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"? In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires a controversial change to the Social Contract, has been debated extensively in the past to no avail, and has already had a GR proposed and tabled until after the voting GR, yes.
Re: Removal of non-free
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030524 13:08]: > Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some > of the desire, doesn't it? I think a distribution system with an emphasis on free software, also helping with non-free bits one can not get rid from is something useful to many people. Wihtout non-free parts, people needing them will have two possibilities: They might use another system, which might force them to even use non-free parts for installation or configuration. (They might not like it, but not everyone can value long term goods as freedom over short term things like manpower needed). Or they might use some non-free parts from another source. As this source has no more emphasis on free software, it is less likely to drop things when a replacement arises and the non-free parts might recommend other non-free parts more than the free parts. (additonally such a source would need resources, our project would no longer have). > > [...] Do you really think even the thread of > > removing would be realistic? ) [...] > Yes. I think this is one of the most important difference. I just can not even imagine how much I had to narrow my mind to believe this. I daily struggel to get free software anywhere near me. If I just cannot close my eyes and pretend nothing non-free exists or is needed. If I did, this might even cause non-free operating systems to return to places I banished them from. > If non-free things are uploaded to main, surely that's a bug? It is. And anyone will see it this way, as long as there is non-free. > >> is fairly minimal (set up a BTS, apt repository - what else?). > > webpages, autobuilders, account managment, keyrings, > > Web? When did an apt source have a web page? Now, consider there was a nondebian.org. Wouldn't it need webpages to describe what it is, how to participate, what guidelines to follow. Websites searching the package description and looking at package dependencies? > Autobuilders? Are pbuilder et al so hard? There are no autobuilders for non-free stuff within Debian. Do you really want autobuilders for non-free created somewhere else? > Account management? wtf? > Keyrings? Can't we use the same one. As long as non-free is handled by Debian infrastructure, nothing has to be done for this. I hope the developer database will not be exported anywhere. (If it was, I and hopefully man others would insist in Debian having control over the place it is exported to. But then it would be just time-consuming change of nomenclature. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: Removal of non-free
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as > a useful service. People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service. [...policy vs users?...] > Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF > of recently? I don't think so. > Things shouldn't stay in non-free, no. [...] Would you support a "maximum length of stay" proposal for non-free? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."
Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote: >> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 >> of our Social Contract? > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of > non-free GR. Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"?
Re: Removal of non-free
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] Free software sadly > needs some time to fit in al the niches, as much too few institutions > have adopted it, and good code just needs time. Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some of the desire, doesn't it? > [...] Do you really think even the thread of > removing would be realistic? ) [...] Yes. > And the point about things in main before is really important. With > enough exceptions made for things that had nicer licences earlier or > which badness was not prior found, it'd get much harder to avoid > non-free things slipping in in main directly. I do not advocate making exceptions for main, so please do not raise that. If non-free things are uploaded to main, surely that's a bug? >> is fairly minimal (set up a BTS, apt repository - what else?). > webpages, autobuilders, account managment, keyrings, Web? When did an apt source have a web page? Autobuilders? Are pbuilder et al so hard? Account management? wtf? Keyrings? Can't we use the same one. > I'm quite sure that situation for non-free stuff will get better, if > non-free is thrown out of debian I don't see why. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."
Re: Removal of non-free
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening. Such as? And was uploading to non-free a temporary measure to prepare a package while the copyright holder deliberated? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."
Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote: > Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 > of our Social Contract? No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of non-free GR.
Re: Removal of non-free
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:30:52PM -, MJ Ray wrote: > Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free > > in some way. > > This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section. If Debian is going to declare documentation which is freely distributable, translateable, and can by freely referred to in other works or used as a basis for derived works, but is non-Free simply because it doesn't allow for distributing changes to the document itself because they authors believe that would be harmful (read: RFCs, for at least one example), then I find at least one clear case of something that is only the barest hair away from Free, which most of the rest of the world considers Free enough, but which Debian doesn't - *this* is something that belongs in non-free as a useful service. In a very real sense, one of the reasons Debian can do things like take the stance on the GFDL that it appears to be doing, without losing a huge number of users over it, is because non-free allows them to still get at the documentation if they care. Users who believe in the Debian political goals can avoid it; well and good, someone writes Free documentation to replace it, all's happy - in a while. Users who would rather just have Debian's quality, without the fallout of details about licenses and whether they're free or Free, can use it and beware of reusing anything from non-free. This works well, but if we take away non-free, we're put in a situation of "well, we don't agree with the FSF, they aren't changing, and nobody has time to rewrite the Emacs manual, so I guess we'll just drop it completely". Above and beyond any DFSG questions about serving "Our users", this would almost certainly cost us more than users - it would also cost us credibility, by appearing to put political motives (promoting Free Software) firmly ahead of caring about our users. Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF of recently? Things shouldn't stay in non-free, no. And, personally, there's some freely distributable stuff that I don't think ever needs to BE in non-free; especially anything with an even halfway suitable Free replacement. It might even be worth it to review the contents periodically (rather than just letting them atrophy) and ask "Is making this exception still warranted?" - but just dropping it, as noble a goal as it might be, would, I think, cost Debian more ground than it would gain. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpG69Cfm2dLV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removal of non-free
MJ Ray wrote: > > (And thus makes it easier to > > apply pressure to change the licence). > > Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result > of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before? Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening. I think it has something to do with authors seeing some benefits from debianized software, and realizing they'll get more in main. Though we can only guess. -- see shy jo pgpc7OgesJG5r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removal of non-free
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030522 16:11]: > > I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free > > in some way. > This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section. But it is a reason, why the "mozilla now exists" does not change the situation. It once was a browser, then a pdf-viewer. Currently I'm looking forward to a replacement for povray. Free software sadly needs some time to fit in al the niches, as much too few institutions have adopted it, and good code just needs time. > > I believe havinig non-free areas ourselves is the best > > way to achieve this. > Can you give any other reasons? I don't like the ones you give below. I don't like them, too. But I don't like many things in this world. > > It radically dicharges pressure to include or > > leave anything non-free in Debian. > > Such pressure is irrelevant, unless you think there's a realistic chance > of the basic "100% free software" pledge being changed as a result? I do not only see a realistic change, but a large chance for this. (Consider the emacs documentation were considered non-free and the only possibilities were making an exception or removing it from anything Debian distributes. Do you really think even the thread of removing would be realistic? ) > > (And thus makes it easier to > > apply pressure to change the licence). > > Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result > of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before? I can't recall any. As the normal way is to ask for a new licence before uploading packages, numbers are hard to get. And the point about things in main before is really important. With enough exceptions made for things that had nicer licences earlier or which badness was not prior found, it'd get much harder to avoid non-free things slipping in in main directly. > > And having it implemented as satallite gives us not only control which > > things get in and to throw things out, but also makes sure it does > > not draw labor to create alternative infrastructure. > > Indeed, but it has been suggested that we should use that control to throw > it all out. I think that the time for that has come. It will save some > mirror space and transfer, while any work likely to be done by the few > non-free apologists who will persist ;-) I doubt that this are so few. > is fairly minimal (set up a BTS, apt repository - what else?). webpages, autobuilders, account managment, keyrings, Not to forget the work to find computers, hosting places, mirrors and such infrastructure. I'm quite sure that situation for non-free stuff will get better, if non-free is thrown out of debian > I assume that only a reply to the Catholic part was supposed to be off-list, > as this seems fairly on-topic. on debian-legal? I suggest switching to debian-project or debian-unneededflamewar... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: Removal of non-free
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free > in some way. This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section. > I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable > alternatives (not by closing my eyes and leaving those helpless, > that cannot), and the non-free things to draw as few labor as possible. Indeed. > I believe havinig non-free areas ourselves is the best > way to achieve this. Can you give any other reasons? I don't like the ones you give below. > It radically dicharges pressure to include or > leave anything non-free in Debian. Such pressure is irrelevant, unless you think there's a realistic chance of the basic "100% free software" pledge being changed as a result? > (And thus makes it easier to > apply pressure to change the licence). Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before? > And having it implemented as satallite gives us not only control which > things get in and to throw things out, but also makes sure it does > not draw labor to create alternative infrastructure. Indeed, but it has been suggested that we should use that control to throw it all out. I think that the time for that has come. It will save some mirror space and transfer, while any work likely to be done by the few non-free apologists who will persist ;-) is fairly minimal (set up a BTS, apt repository - what else?). I assume that only a reply to the Catholic part was supposed to be off-list, as this seems fairly on-topic. -- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging. How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
Re: Removal of non-free
* Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030522 06:24]: > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the > > first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own > > definition of free software which is different from ours. We also > > disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending > > non-free software. > > Perhaps it would be nice to make a concession to Free Software. > I remember a time when it was argued that there was no free web browser, > and that we should keep non-free. But this piece of important software > has a free implementation. > > Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 > of our Social Contract? Uff, this argument again... I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free in some way. I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable alternatives (not by closing my eyes and leaving those helpless, that cannot), and the non-free things to draw as few labor as possible. I believe havinig non-free areas ourselves is the best way to achieve this. It radically dicharges pressure to include or leave anything non-free in Debian. (And thus makes it easier to apply pressure to change the licence). And having it implemented as satallite gives us not only control which things get in and to throw things out, but also makes sure it does not draw labor to create alternative infrastructure. Removing it would be similar to catholic church in Germany giving away the chance to talk to women wanting to abort to show them alternatives to their desire, because that way they did not want to give the acknowledgement of the talk... This only for the case nobody else answers because the discussion arised to often lately. Anwers please not to debian-legal but somewhere else... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the > first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own > definition of free software which is different from ours. We also > disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending > non-free software. Perhaps it would be nice to make a concession to Free Software. I remember a time when it was argued that there was no free web browser, and that we should keep non-free. But this piece of important software has a free implementation. Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 of our Social Contract? Simon P.S. I for one maintain a package of non-free documentation. I have, however, been hoping to write a replacement for it, so I will not pine for its loss.
