Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Charles Plessy]

> On 10/5/19 1:10 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative
> > to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned
> > and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian.  It was a
> > definitely a bitter experience that I do not feel to reproduce...

Le Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:10:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> 
> does that still exist? Might make sense to share some work there. Not
> sure, though, with so many github haters out there, I might want to keep
> my stuff under my own account which makes it easier to stop  whatever you like here> people from doing not so sane things.

Hi Bernd,

no pressure at the moment.  It was painful to make something new happen,
but now it is low-maintenance routine, that I share with Yaroslav.
Still I would not mind be replaced.  The workflow is to get GPG-signed
emails, check the web of trust, and add people to the group.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: I think We're Done: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Sam Hartman]

> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand  writes:

Thomas> Not discussing the issue itself, just (respectfully)
Thomas> commenting on your reply.

Thomas> If there's no valid reason to prefer Github, then it would
Thomas> be very easy to just enforce the use only Salsa. Therefore,
Thomas> I'm just trying to understand what the incentives are. Your
Thomas> reply saying "because they can" sounds a bit silly to me,
Thomas> and isn't very helpful...

I understand this desire, and it sounds like you've gotten some valuable
feedback.

One of the things I'm supposed to do under Constitution 4.1 (9) is lead
and facilitate discussions.
We've received significant feedback on debian-devel that long mailing
list threads have a cost to a number of members in our community.

One of the things I noticed while compiling the recent Git summary is
that the discussion of Github and non-free services took up much more
space in the discussion than anything else.
Even though we knew very early on that we weren't going to be able to
change anything.


We've reached the point where we need to be done with this thread both
here and on debian-devel.

If you want to continue learning about Github usage in Debian I
recommend reaching out respectfully to individuals who have participated
in the discussion and asking them if they would be willing to help you
continue to learn.

I'm sure we'll revisit this all some day.  Technologies, usage patterns,
etc change.  Perhaps some cross-project service on a free platform will
gain momentum.

But for now, we're done.

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

On 10/9/19 4:16 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/5/19 11:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>>> preferred by the maintainer.
>>
>> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
>> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
>> than using Salsa?
> 
> because they are free to do so.
> If pornhub would offer a git server with more features than github and
> gitlab, people would probably start to use it, too. Free people in a
> free world are free to use whatever they like to, even if you think that
> the service they like to use is not free or is not your taste or
> whatever else.
> 
> If you don't like it, clone it, push it, mirror it. You are free to do so.
> 
> But please stop telling other people what they are supposed to do or not.
> 
> Git is like your favorite car. You can buy one from VW with
> maybe-broken-software, it will serve you well until it dies.
> Or you can build your own "free" car, it will serve you well until it dies.
> 
> Would you like it that various people tell you not to drive your lovely
> VW because it is not free?

Not discussing the issue itself, just (respectfully) commenting on your
reply.

If there's no valid reason to prefer Github, then it would be very easy
to just enforce the use only Salsa. Therefore, I'm just trying to
understand what the incentives are. Your reply saying "because they can"
sounds a bit silly to me, and isn't very helpful...

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 10/5/19 11:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>> preferred by the maintainer.
> 
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?

because they are free to do so.
If pornhub would offer a git server with more features than github and
gitlab, people would probably start to use it, too. Free people in a
free world are free to use whatever they like to, even if you think that
the service they like to use is not free or is not your taste or
whatever else.

If you don't like it, clone it, push it, mirror it. You are free to do so.

But please stop telling other people what they are supposed to do or not.

Git is like your favorite car. You can buy one from VW with
maybe-broken-software, it will serve you well until it dies.
Or you can build your own "free" car, it will serve you well until it dies.

Would you like it that various people tell you not to drive your lovely
VW because it is not free?


-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Hi,

On 10/5/19 1:10 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative
> to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned
> and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian.  It was a
> definitely a bitter experience that I do not feel to reproduce...

does that still exist? Might make sense to share some work there. Not
sure, though, with so many github haters out there, I might want to keep
my stuff under my own account which makes it easier to stop  people from doing not so sane things.


Brend


-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Ondrej Novy]

Hi,

út 8. 10. 2019 v 10:06 odesílatel Michael Lustfield 
napsal:

>   + I can create branches that won't let me force push (git push -f)
>   + I can create projects that let me push to anything except master
>

https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/protected_branches.html

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bastian Blank]

Hi Michael

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > - GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned

We are all volunteers, which is not the case for GitHub employees.  So
thank you for volunteering to help the Salsa admins with communication
in the future.

Regards,
Bastian

-- 
I'm a soldier, not a diplomat.  I can only tell the truth.
-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bastian Blank]

Hi Michael

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:49:32AM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> - It's significantly more stable
>   + I've seen "GitLab is not responding" more times than I can keep track of
>   + I've also seen a large number of 500 and 504 errors (at least 1x/wk)

We have around 0,1% failure rate.

>   + This reliably fails: https://salsa.debian.org/api/v4/groups/debian

- Known, bug in the API, can be worked aroung with
  "?with_projects=false".
- WTH do you even try this?
- I doubt that GitHub got similar large groups.

> - GitHub often addresses problems quickly; this is rare with salsa

https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/support/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=all&author_username=mtecknology
is empty.  So which problems are you talking about.

> - GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned

https://bits.debian.org/2019/08/salsa-postmortem-docker-registry.html

> - Decisions are discussed, instead of drunken thoughts over chips and salsa

-v?

Okay, no need to go further.

Bastian

-- 
Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!
-- Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

On 10/8/19 9:49 AM, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200
> Thomas Goirand  wrote:
> 
>> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
>> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
>> than using Salsa?
>>
>>> You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
>>> even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
>>> why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
>>> for the repository.  
>>
>> I'm just trying to understand here...
>> Apart from the "close to upstream" bit, what would be the reasons?
> 
> I prefer GitHub over Debian's GitLab instance because:
> 
> - It's significantly more stable
>   + I've seen "GitLab is not responding" more times than I can keep track of
>   + I've also seen a large number of 500 and 504 errors (at least 1x/wk)
>   + This reliably fails: https://salsa.debian.org/api/v4/groups/debian
> - GitHub often addresses problems quickly; this is rare with salsa
> - GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned
> - Decisions are discussed, instead of drunken thoughts over chips and salsa
> - I've witnessed more changes accepted by GitHub
>   + Salsa concerns have been met with, "fix it in upstream or go away"
>   + GitHub concerns have been met with, "this is now an internal incident"
> & often fixed within a month or two
> - It's a well-known standard solution where many people already have accounts
> - GitHub admins are *much* more responsive (for obvious reasons)
> 
> I prefer GitHub over GitLab, in general, because:
> 
> - GitHub doesn't require javascript just to browse repos
> - GitHub is often *much* faster to respond to feature requests
> - GitHub stages upgrades; improving general stability
> - GitLab has a *lot* of weird ACL bugs
>   + I can create projects in groups that I have no access to maintain
>   + I can create branches that won't let me force push (git push -f)
>   + I can create projects that let me push to anything except master
>   + I can be given maintainer access to a team owning those projects, but 
> still
> run into all the same problems
> 
> I can provide a much longer list, but it shouldn't be necessary. There are
> plenty of reasons why someone would prefer GitHub over other alternatives.
> Attempting to force one option only going to further divide our community.

You (and FWIW everyone else) didn't provide any *feature* that's missing
in Salsa. I do hear the above, but I was expecting to read about
features missing in Gitlab. It's nice that it doesn't seem to be the case.

BTW, I do not agree that Salsa is often down, badly maintained, or buggy
in general. Compared to Alioth, that's a big plus. I am also very
thankful for the work done so far.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Xavier]

Le Mardi, Octobre 08, 2019 09:49 CEST, Michael Lustfield 
 a écrit:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200
> Thomas Goirand  wrote:
>
> > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> > requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> > than using Salsa?
> >
> > > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
> > > even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
> > > why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
> > > for the repository.
> >
> > I'm just trying to understand here...
> > Apart from the "close to upstream" bit, what would be the reasons?
>
> I prefer GitHub over Debian's GitLab instance because:
>
> - It's significantly more stable
>   + I've seen "GitLab is not responding" more times than I can keep track of
>   + I've also seen a large number of 500 and 504 errors (at least 1x/wk)
>   + This reliably fails: https://salsa.debian.org/api/v4/groups/debian
> - GitHub often addresses problems quickly; this is rare with salsa
> - GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned
> - Decisions are discussed, instead of drunken thoughts over chips and salsa
> - I've witnessed more changes accepted by GitHub
>   + Salsa concerns have been met with, "fix it in upstream or go away"
>   + GitHub concerns have been met with, "this is now an internal incident"
> & often fixed within a month or two
> - It's a well-known standard solution where many people already have accounts
> - GitHub admins are *much* more responsive (for obvious reasons)
>
> I prefer GitHub over GitLab, in general, because:
>
> - GitHub doesn't require javascript just to browse repos
> - GitHub is often *much* faster to respond to feature requests
> - GitHub stages upgrades; improving general stability
> - GitLab has a *lot* of weird ACL bugs
>   + I can create projects in groups that I have no access to maintain
>   + I can create branches that won't let me force push (git push -f)
>   + I can create projects that let me push to anything except master
>   + I can be given maintainer access to a team owning those projects, but 
> still
> run into all the same problems
>
> I can provide a much longer list, but it shouldn't be necessary. There are
> plenty of reasons why someone would prefer GitHub over other alternatives.
> Attempting to force one option only going to further divide our community.

I heard the same thing when we were migrating from Office to LibreOffice (x 
~100.000 users). Freedom has a price.
Thank you very much to the salsa teams for the great work they do

Cheers,
Xavier

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Michael Lustfield]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200
Thomas Goirand  wrote:

> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?
> 
> > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
> > even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
> > why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
> > for the repository.  
> 
> I'm just trying to understand here...
> Apart from the "close to upstream" bit, what would be the reasons?

I prefer GitHub over Debian's GitLab instance because:

- It's significantly more stable
  + I've seen "GitLab is not responding" more times than I can keep track of
  + I've also seen a large number of 500 and 504 errors (at least 1x/wk)
  + This reliably fails: https://salsa.debian.org/api/v4/groups/debian
- GitHub often addresses problems quickly; this is rare with salsa
- GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned
- Decisions are discussed, instead of drunken thoughts over chips and salsa
- I've witnessed more changes accepted by GitHub
  + Salsa concerns have been met with, "fix it in upstream or go away"
  + GitHub concerns have been met with, "this is now an internal incident"
& often fixed within a month or two
- It's a well-known standard solution where many people already have accounts
- GitHub admins are *much* more responsive (for obvious reasons)

I prefer GitHub over GitLab, in general, because:

- GitHub doesn't require javascript just to browse repos
- GitHub is often *much* faster to respond to feature requests
- GitHub stages upgrades; improving general stability
- GitLab has a *lot* of weird ACL bugs
  + I can create projects in groups that I have no access to maintain
  + I can create branches that won't let me force push (git push -f)
  + I can create projects that let me push to anything except master
  + I can be given maintainer access to a team owning those projects, but still
run into all the same problems

I can provide a much longer list, but it shouldn't be necessary. There are
plenty of reasons why someone would prefer GitHub over other alternatives.
Attempting to force one option only going to further divide our community.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Jose-Luis Rivas]

On 10/5/19 17:42, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?

Because the person already has an account in GitHub, and has code there.
And when asked to show their code they point to their GitHub account
that's where they centralize all of their code.

There's people that's not interested in having accounts created based on
their beliefs about stuff but because of pragmatism, and if your
employer is already using GitHub and your favorite open source projects
are already using GitHub (which is the case for most people), then just
use GitHub and leave the others behind because: why would you need
another account for the same stuff? Can't they pull from your GitHub
repository after all?

-- 

   __.https://wiki.debian.org/JoseLuisRivas
___'/___  rsa4096/D278F9C15E5461AA3C1E2FCD13EC43EEB9AC8C43

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Ole Streicher]

Thomas Goirand  writes:
>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>> preferred by the maintainer.
>
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?

Maybe they has already a Github account and does not want to create
another one as long as this is not really necessary. Maybe they is more
familar with the Github user interface than with the Gitlab one. Maybe
they thinks that the repository is better visible if on Github. Maybe
they does the job for an institution which requires to have the
repositories in the institutional organization. Maybe the primary
packaging is done for another distribution (or a special repository).

Sure: most of these are not really strong reasons, and I would always
try to convince people to move to Salsa. And for Debian Astro (as for
many other teams), the requirement is to have the repository on Salsa,
and I am fully behind that.

But that still does not mean that I see reasons why people use Github
for Debian packages and (to come back to the original discussion) having
a repository on Github does *not* automatically mean a preference in the
workflow. So, if someone has the repository there, you can still expect
that BTS patches are welcome. You stated the opposite, that that was all.

>> And, BTW, sometimes contributing to a Debian package requires
>> communication with upstream (creating a bug report or discussing a
>> patch); in this case you cannot avoid the use of non-free services
>> anyway, since you are then bound to their choice of services.
>
> This is bound to the choice of each package maintainer, and has nothing
> to do with the rules for packaging within Debian. In other words: what
> you are discussing is IMO off-topic.

Your (?) argument was: contributing to a Debian package shall not
require to use non-free services. My counter-argument is: contributing
to a Debian package often requires communication with upstream (provide
patches, look for fixes from upstream etc.), where non-free service may
be involved. So, the goal of not requiring non-free services cannot be
reached anyway.

Nevertheless, I see many good reasons why we should enforce people to
use Salse. Homogenizing the packaging a bit makes team maintenance a lot
easier, allows better QA, non-discriminating access (didn't Github
exclude Iran developers a while ago?) etc. But "not enforce people to
use a non-free service when contributing to Debian" is IMO not
convincing.

Cheers

Ole

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Andreas Tille]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 11:42:50PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?

While I personally think that using something else than Salsa is not
helpful for team maintenance the answer to this question from Norberts
point should be clear.
 
> > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
> > even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
> > why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
> > for the repository.
> 
> I'm just trying to understand here...
> Apart from the "close to upstream" bit, what would be the reasons?

I also don't understand this.
 
Kind regards

 Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

Hi Ole,

Thanks for your reply.

On 10/4/19 8:18 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Thomas Goirand  writes:
>> On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to
>>> maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send
>>> a patch to the BTS.
>>
>> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
>> wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?

s/slenderizes/advertises/

Sorry for the typo, I'm not sure how my spell-checker did that ... :)

> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
> preferred by the maintainer.

So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
than using Salsa?

> You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
> even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
> why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
> for the repository.

I'm just trying to understand here...
Apart from the "close to upstream" bit, what would be the reasons?

> And, BTW, sometimes contributing to a Debian package requires
> communication with upstream (creating a bug report or discussing a
> patch); in this case you cannot avoid the use of non-free services
> anyway, since you are then bound to their choice of services.

This is bound to the choice of each package maintainer, and has nothing
to do with the rules for packaging within Debian. In other words: what
you are discussing is IMO off-topic.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Charles Plessy]

Le Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:40:15PM +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
> 
> And a side note: please accept that others in the project have opinions
> that object to yours. Not agreeing with your point of view doesn't mean
> that you're silenced or censored, despite you behaving like this. Quite
> on the contrary, that's what vibrant democratic debates are about ;)

Hi Jonas,

it is important that both sides of the argument accept to respect each
other.  Sadly, it is a strong pattern on the Debian mailing lists that
unkind impolite thankless naysaying comes first, since it is simple to
express and quicker to type...

I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative
to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned
and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian.  It was a
definitely a bitter experience that I do not feel to reproduce...

In other contexts, this could be called environmental harassment.  No
matter if the pressure comes from different people at each time, what
is sure is that working on certain areas is going to be emotionally
expensive.

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Florian Weimer]

* Ole Streicher:

> You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
> even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
> why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
> for the repository.

And you can't disable this Github feature, so its availability tells
others nothing about maintainer preferences.

I've grudgingly submitted pull requests over Github, only to be told
that no, we don't accept patches here. 8-(

But nevertheless, I think the canonical source location is useful
information, especially in a machine-readable form.

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Ole Streicher]

Hi Thomas,

Thomas Goirand  writes:
> On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to
>> maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send
>> a patch to the BTS.
>
> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
> wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?

No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
preferred by the maintainer.

You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
for the repository.

On the other hand, you *know* that BTS patches are accepted, so I do not
see why they would not be the preferred way when in doubt.

And, BTW, sometimes contributing to a Debian package requires
communication with upstream (creating a bug report or discussing a
patch); in this case you cannot avoid the use of non-free services
anyway, since you are then bound to their choice of services.

Best regards

Ole

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Jonas Meurer]

Norbert Preining:
>>> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain 
>>> Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the 
>>> BTS.
>>
>> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
>> wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?
> 
> Wrong. I don't care for PR, and accept them as well as patches to BTS,
> whatever comes. This is FUD you are spreading.
> 
> Anyway, consequence of the whole discussion is that I will remove all
> VCS fields from my packages. I have enough of that.

Huh, why should you do this? We as a project are nowhere near a
consensus to deprecate Github links in VCS fields. Why would you remove
your VCS fields in anticipatory obedience?

And a side note: please accept that others in the project have opinions
that object to yours. Not agreeing with your point of view doesn't mean
that you're silenced or censored, despite you behaving like this. Quite
on the contrary, that's what vibrant democratic debates are about ;)

Cheers
 jonas




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Norbert Preining]

On Sat, 05 Oct 2019, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
> > wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?
> 
> Wrong. I don't care for PR, and accept them as well as patches to BTS,
> whatever comes. This is FUD you are spreading.

Forgot to mention - one can use git and "that what should not be named"
with things like
git format-patch / git am
in case you didn't know.

So I still think having a VCS at "that what should not be named" is
better than no VCS field whatsoever ... but then, it is the dark side.

Enjoy

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Norbert Preining]

> > It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain 
> > Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the 
> > BTS.
> 
> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
> wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?

Wrong. I don't care for PR, and accept them as well as patches to BTS,
whatever comes. This is FUD you are spreading.

Anyway, consequence of the whole discussion is that I will remove all
VCS fields from my packages. I have enough of that.

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

On 9/13/19 12:51 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> Just because you, and I, believe that "No Debian contributor should be
> expected or encouraged... ...to use any non-free tools" does not mean
> that we should *prevent* them from doing so.

Though advertising for a non-free service through the VCS fields is
indeed encouraging using such a non-free service.

>>    For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>>    proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>>    acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
> Your example strikes of forcing people to use an entirely free system
> for their development process.

Nop. For *sharing* development. That's where there's a huge difference.
If you advertise for a VCS URL, it is to work with others. Otherwise,
why publishing your Git repository on a public place?

> If we are to encourage and support
> freedom that means that we must also accept that other people have the
> freedom to use proprietary git code management systems.

Nobody intend to forbid this, unless you advertise for it in the VCS
URLs, which indeed, is trying to enroll others.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain 
> Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the 
> BTS.

If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?

Thomas

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

On 9/13/19 8:14 AM, Ansgar wrote:
> So assume I want to avoid using non-free DNS and CDN services, but still
> contribute to Debian.  How should that work as long as Debian uses these
> services?

If you have in mind the CDN used for security updates, well it'd be a
nice idea if DSAs were thinking about moving away from that, since
that's non-free. That's not what this GR is about, but maybe we should
open the discussion as well.

> How should one contact people using non-free mail services?
> (mailto:non-free is probably not better than https://non-free...)

That's not what this GR is about either.

> Of course Debian can stop using CDN services and provide a worse
> experience for users, but why?

Because we care about the 4 freedom that we have with free software.

Why not, instead, create and use our own CDN service?
https://www.fromdev.com/2011/06/create-cdn-content-delivery-network.html

> Debian's goal is not to build and operate a free CDN service...

Right, it's not our final goal. Right, it's easier to just use a
non-free service. Though is the later what we really *should* be doing?
That's a very different question. Please, let's not mix them.

Yes, running our own services is time and resource demanding. But
there's a reason why we've been doing that for years... If the DSA team
doesn't want to do that, they have alternatives:

- Don't run such a service at all (and don't use a commercial service
either).
- Ask for help.
- Run on a commercial service, but make sure that what's underneath is
fully free software, and that it'd be feasible to set it up ourselves.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  4 octobre 2019 16:57 +02, Thomas Goirand :

>>> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
>>> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
>>> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
>>> part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
>>> upstream.
>
> It's very much fine if you still host it on Salsa, and ask upstream to
> pull from your repository.
>
> Besides this, I found such cases pretty rare, and mostly, we get
> upstream doing wrong/bad packaging, having a non-consistent with the
> Debian archive debian/changelog (because they don't care our release
> cycle and such), etc. Even with a very cooperative upstream, I don't see
> how you would get a single and unique debian/changelog, when most also
> care about Ubuntu. Do you have such concret example where Debian can use
> the upstream repository without a single change?

Not sure if this is what you have in mind, but:
 - https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp/tree/debian/sid
 - https://github.com/edenhill/kafkacat/tree/debian
-- 
Use the "telephone test" for readability.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Thomas Goirand]

On 9/16/19 6:53 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 9/12/19 7:49 PM, Ansgar wrote:
> 
>> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
>> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
>> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
>> part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
>> upstream.

It's very much fine if you still host it on Salsa, and ask upstream to
pull from your repository.

Besides this, I found such cases pretty rare, and mostly, we get
upstream doing wrong/bad packaging, having a non-consistent with the
Debian archive debian/changelog (because they don't care our release
cycle and such), etc. Even with a very cooperative upstream, I don't see
how you would get a single and unique debian/changelog, when most also
care about Ubuntu. Do you have such concret example where Debian can use
the upstream repository without a single change?

> Either that or packages are just being removed from Debian and provided
> in an external repository.

That's entirely a package maintainer's decision, and so it is another
package maintainer's decision to take over the work. IMO, this is FUD.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Anonymous]

A General Resolution might be necessary concerning potential
misinterpretation of Debian Social Contract in the project.

1. "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component."

Are webservices for example gitlab.com, cloudflare.com or dns.google a
required component in Debian and how do they qualify as non-/free?


Thanks all!

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 9/12/19 7:49 PM, Ansgar wrote:

> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
> part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
> upstream.

Either that or packages are just being removed from Debian and provided
in an external repository.


-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 9/13/19 5:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray  writes:
>> MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
>> MJ> view.  Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
>> MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I
>> MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to
>> MJ> go sign a github contract.
>>
>> I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread
>> on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches
>> submitted through the BTS.  Telling someone they needed to use Github
>> would be unacceptable in my mind.
> 
> Is anyone actually doing that?  I think this entire thread is nothing more 
> than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and we 
> should just move on.

Absolutely.

Nobody should be forced to use a tool - or not.

Also if you want to send a pull request and don't want to use github,
clone the repo to whatever service you like and send a PR from there via
the BTS. Where is the problem?



-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le lundi 16 septembre 2019 à 04:56:19+0800,  Yao Wei (魏銘廷) a écrit :
> 
> > On Sep 14, 2019, at 02:15, Pierre-Elliott Bécue  wrote:
> > 
> >> Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections?
> >> 
> >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
> >> 
> >> Yao Wei
> > 
> > I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email.
> > 
> > Can you develop your point ?
> > 
> 
> That was my random thought:
> 
> If we cannot use non-free software for Debian packaging, we cannot
> naturally install what we pack to examine the package.  Therefore I
> thought the existence of non-free section is probably doomed.
> 
> But since non-free section is not part of Debian per DSC §5, therefore
> that's not so related here.

The other reason I see for it not to be really accurate is that I'm
saying I'd rather keep the current situation (non-free tools like Github
used to package Debian stuff) than enforce the free tooling view. If I
defend the right for people to use github if they wish there is a little
chance I'd advocate for removing the non-free repo. :)

> Sorry for confusion, and I will try communicating carefully.
> 
> The usage of non-free tools for packaging should be okay because we
> "can" make free software out of non-free tools, though some would
> think we should use free tools only to build a free society.  I
> believe more in harmony that the world of free software and non-free
> software should be able to co-exist.  This should be a philosophy
> question on the position of Debian, about whether Debian is completely
> non-free exclusive in every way (and whether the existence of non-free
> section should be challenged again).

I personally don't think we should challenge the existence of the
non-free repo.

> However, on the choice of VCS, I think we can REQUIRE Salsa to be on
> the Vcs-Git and make Vcs-Git to be mandatory except for valid reasons.
> Developers should be free to mirror their repository from the service
> they would like to, but they should be two-way synchronized between
> Salsa and the service.  If it is possible, I'd like to propose putting
> multiple Vcs-Git URLs to indicate mirrors.  That could also answer the
> issue that some people prefer free services instead of non-free
> service used by maintainer, and can come in handy in case if Salsa is
> down.

I tend to see people leaving if you restrict the tools they're allowed
to use, not them becoming more prone to free software in any way.

Sure there'll be people eager to make the effort, but I'm afraid some
will just give up contributing.

I hope I made myself more understandable on this one,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Yao Wei (魏銘廷)]

> On Sep 14, 2019, at 02:15, Pierre-Elliott Bécue  wrote:
> 
>> Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections?
>> 
>> https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
>> 
>> Yao Wei
> 
> I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email.
> 
> Can you develop your point ?
> 

That was my random thought:

If we cannot use non-free software for Debian packaging, we cannot naturally 
install what we pack to examine the package.  Therefore I thought the existence 
of non-free section is probably doomed.

But since non-free section is not part of Debian per DSC §5, therefore that's 
not so related here.

Sorry for confusion, and I will try communicating carefully.

The usage of non-free tools for packaging should be okay because we "can" make 
free software out of non-free tools, though some would think we should use free 
tools only to build a free society.  I believe more in harmony that the world 
of free software and non-free software should be able to co-exist.  This should 
be a philosophy question on the position of Debian, about whether Debian is 
completely non-free exclusive in every way (and whether the existence of 
non-free section should be challenged again).

However, on the choice of VCS, I think we can REQUIRE Salsa to be on the 
Vcs-Git and make Vcs-Git to be mandatory except for valid reasons.  Developers 
should be free to mirror their repository from the service they would like to, 
but they should be two-way synchronized between Salsa and the service.  If it 
is possible, I'd like to propose putting multiple Vcs-Git URLs to indicate 
mirrors.  That could also answer the issue that some people prefer free 
services instead of non-free service used by maintainer, and can come in handy 
in case if Salsa is down.

Yao Wei, still trying to clear my thoughts and find a place to stand.

(Sent from a phone, sorry for HTML email.)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Bart Martens]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
> 
> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
>   recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>   of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>   Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
> 
> I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>   unstable are hosted on Github.
> 
> Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of services
>   like Github it would pass.
> 
> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
> 
> I think such a discussion is better on -project.

Thanks.

> 
>   [1]:
>   
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
>   [3]:
>   
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   
>   
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> 
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  

That applies to any tool, also free ones.

>   This includes proprietary
>   web services.

And free web services.

>   We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.
> 
>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

Then maintainers could remove them as a workaround.

> 
>   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
> 
>   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>   of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>   upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>   still need to refer to proprietary systems.

Our upstreams are free to use what they want.

Note that salsa.d.o is a legal risk. When a contributor uploads
non-distributable software, then Debian is in fact redistributing it
immediately. Should we promote Github? :-)

Cheers,

Bart

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:37:58PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated.
> 
> I agree with that. However, I'm not sure if it would make it harder. How does
> this cooperation work, where you need your packaging to be on the same host as
> upstream?

It's sometimes easier to send patches to upstream if you can just send them a
pull request. In fact, one of my upstreams (ola) has told me repeatedly
that they prefer that.

It's easier to send them a pull request if your code is on the same
platform as theirs.

However, using their platform does not require that you *only* use their
platform. My ola repository is on github[1], but also on salsa[2].

[1] https://github.com/yoe/ola
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/ola

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le 13 septembre 2019 00:54:47 GMT+02:00, Yao Wei  a écrit :
>On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
>> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits
>for
>> the project.
>
>Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections?
>
>https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
>
>Yao Wei

I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email.

Can you develop your point ?

Thanks. 
-- 
PEB (from my phone)

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Ian Jackson]

Sam Hartman writes ("Debian and Non-Free Services"):
> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
> 
> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
>   recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>   of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>   Ian disagreed with this recommendation.

Sam, from this thread, it seems very likely[1] that you were right
about where Debian's consensus was, and that I was wrong.

> He proposed the following text for such a GR.

Also Enrico Zini sent a couple of messages where he strongly objected
to this escalation by me.  IME Enrico Zini is usually right.  I should
have listened to him more carefully the first time.

For my own part, I'm going to drop this suggestion now.  I still don't
agree with the apparent project consensus but I want to spend my
energy on something more constructive.

Ian.

[1] Even allowing for the fact that mailing list threads are not a
 very reliable way to judge the project's overall views.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau]

On 19-09-12 20 h 35, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 
> On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman  wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>>
>> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
>> recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>>  of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>>  Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
>>
>> I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>>  unstable are hosted on Github.
>>
>> Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
>> services
>>  like Github it would pass.
>>
>> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>>
>> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>>
>>  [1]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> [2]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
>>  [3]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>  
>>  
>>  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>>
>>  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>>  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>>  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>>  collective control.
>>
>>  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>>  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>>  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>>
>>  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>>
>>  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>>  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>>  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>>  still need to refer to proprietary systems.
> 
> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain 
> Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS

While I do sympathise with the idea of not having Debian package on
Github, I have to agree with Scott here.

I think I would end up voting against such a GR because the use of Git
isn't mandatory.

If we already had a GR enforcing the use of Git, I think it would only
make sense to make the use of salsa.debian.org mandatory. It seems we
aren't there yet though.

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   po...@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Norbert Preining]

On September 14, 2019 12:29:19 AM GMT+09:00, Scott Kitterman 
 wrote:
>Is anyone actually doing that?  I think this entire thread is nothing
>more 
>than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and
>we 
>should just move on.

+100

Best comment till now. "Crusade" is the word I should have used in other 
occasions.

Norbert


--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "MJ" == MJ Ray  writes:
> MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
> MJ> view.  Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
> MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I
> MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to
> MJ> go sign a github contract.
> 
> I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread
> on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches
> submitted through the BTS.  Telling someone they needed to use Github
> would be unacceptable in my mind.

Is anyone actually doing that?  I think this entire thread is nothing more 
than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and we 
should just move on.

Scott K

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Sam Hartman]

> "MJ" == MJ Ray  writes:

 
MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
MJ> view.  Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I
MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to
MJ> go sign a github contract.

I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread
on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches
submitted through the BTS.  Telling someone they needed to use Github
would be unacceptable in my mind.

--Sam

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[MJ Ray]

Fri Sep 13 12:06:35 GMT+01:00 2019 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov :
 
> чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman :
 
> > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are
> > acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
> 
> I'd say strict NO to this proposal. While our goal is to enhance free software
> and to encourage its usage, we should not limit our developers' freedom
> to use any tool they would like.
 
Both answers limit developers' freedom of choice. NO allows maintainers to
host package sources on github or whatever, but that arguably
requires future maintainers, co-maintainers and so on to use it too.
 
I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" view.
Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join github to use its
private version of pull requests? I know I have patches ignored in there
but I don't remember being told to go sign a github contract.

-- 

MJR - please excuse brevity because this was sent while mobile

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Bas Wijnen wrote:
> note that the proposal is not to say "our users must not be allowed to use 
> github". It's "our developers must not be allowed to force contributors to 
> use github".

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages.  If you don't 
> want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS.

I believe it may be useful to think along the "preferred form for
modifications" clause of the GPL. Which is the "preferred form for
modifications" of Debian packaging? As I understand policy, currently
it's the source package. If that doesn't reflect actual practice, that
might be good reason to change policy.

In any case, I'd always expect the "preferred form" of all packages to
be available on the Debian infrastructure: one must not depend on any
external services, free or not, in order to be able to obtain it. So,
if Git-based packaging becomes the norm, it is my understanding that
the master Git repo of all packages must be hosted on Debian servers.

Clearly, maintainers can still host their own working copy wherever
they would like to, and there's no requirement to make it publicly
accessible through a free service, or at all.

Gerardo

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Holger Levsen]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
 
ZOMG.

IMO one of the less good ideas brought to this list. I will refrain from
further comments for everyones benefit, Ansgar brought up the most
relevant objections already.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman :
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.
>
>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

I'd say strict NO to this proposal. While our goal is to enhance free software
and to encourage its usage, we should not limit our developers' freedom
to use any tool they would like.

>   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>
>   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>   of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>   upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>   still need to refer to proprietary systems.
>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Andy Simpkins]

On 12/09/2019 18:30, Sam Hartman wrote:

Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  I don't believe that anyone within Debian will have a problem with this 

statement.


   This includes proprietary web services.  
Clearly no issue here either - web services are an instance of a 
software application/tool so the above statement holds.




   We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
   collective control."Ensure" is perhaps the wrong word here.  I submit that "Encourage" may 

be a better choice.
Just because you, and I, believe that "No Debian contributor should be 
expected or encouraged... ...to use any non-free tools" does not mean 
that we should *prevent* them from doing so.  The decision to do so 
should vest solely with the contributor.  *providing* that their doing 
so does not force other contributors to use non-free tools.
It would however, IMO, be acceptable to enforce this for Debian's own 
tools, and infrastructure.  Just not for packages where Debian is not 
the 'root upstream'.





   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
Your example strikes of forcing people to use an entirely free system 
for their development process.  If we are to encourage and support 
freedom that means that we must also accept that other people have the 
freedom to use proprietary git code management systems.
Again if this example is bound within the relm of Debian services, tools 
and root packages then IMO this would be acceptable.




   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
Again I can't see anyone within Debian having a problem with this 
statement.





   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
   of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
   upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
   still need to refer to proprietary systems.
That is what I am trying to say, and this statement would appear to be 
at odds with your example above.


I guess what I am trying to say is for upstream packages distributed 
within Debian (the vast majority) we should ensure that contributors to 
these packages are able to contribute using exclusively free tools and 
software.  This does not prohibit the upstream from using proprietary 
services, only that their must be a method to contribute without being 
forced to use those services.


Where the Debian project *is* the upstream then of cause we should eat 
our own dog food and use entirely FLOSS tools.


/Andy

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 15523 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: 

  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools 


I think the subject does not fit the content. Its more like "Forbid DDs
to use certain services".

  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to 
  improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary web 
  services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's 
  collective control.


  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to 
  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are 
  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.



  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.


  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour of 
  those outside our community, for example fields which refer to upstream 
  source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) still need to 
  refer to proprietary systems.


I think that, should this pass, it has negative effects for Debian, not 
positive ones.


While we should clearly NOT encourage the use of things like github, the
only thing we IMO should forbid is where it actually hurts us as a
project. Say, it really doesnt matter if i git clone
github.com/something to get what the maintainer is working on right now
- the one "official" source for the Debian package is whats in the
archive - but if the maintainer wants to use GitHub issues as their
mainplace for bug tracking and not the BTS, thats bad. So if anything,
we should forbid such things (as we discourage anyways already).

Difference IMO is where the main, authorative, place for something is.
source in git is just some source in git, the authorative one for Debian
is the upload. You can easily put an NMU on top (or take over package)
While for bugs its the BTS, not some whatever system somewhere.

--
bye, Joerg

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Ansgar]

"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> >   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>> >
>> >   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>> >   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.
>> 
>> Does this include:
>> 
>>  - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
>>  - non-free software for interacting with hardware,
>>  - non-free backup systems?
>
> You may be correct. In that case, this GR, if passed, declares that we want to
> change that. Is that controversial?

The GR forbids using any of these.  That is not helpful.

As far as I know there is no mainstream hardware that doesn't require
non-free firmware; using non-mainstream hardware is possible, but has
other problems.

>> >   This includes proprietary
>> >   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>> >   collective control.
>> 
>> Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud
>> services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)?
>> Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant
>> parts of the project.
>
> Yes, it should mean that. Again, it doesn't mean people are not allowed to use
> them. It means that people who don't want to use them can still contribute to
> Debian. So for example, it would not be allowed to ignore the bts and only
> accept bug reports through Twitter.

So assume I want to avoid using non-free DNS and CDN services, but still
contribute to Debian.  How should that work as long as Debian uses these
services?  How should one contact people using non-free mail services?
(mailto:non-free is probably not better than https://non-free...)

Of course Debian can stop using CDN services and provide a worse
experience for users, but why?  Debian's goal is not to build and
operate a free CDN service...

Ansgar

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 00:35:23 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman  wrote:
> >Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
> >services
> >  like Github it would pass.

I very much doubt that, TBH, but…

> >He proposed the following text for such a GR.

> >  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> >
> >  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> >  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
> >  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
> >  collective control.
> >
> >  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> >  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
> >  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
> >
> >  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
> >
> >  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
> >  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
> >  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
> >  still need to refer to proprietary systems.
> 
> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to
> maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send
> a patch to the BTS.

Exactly. This GR seems just very misguided to me.

With git being distributed you could even just pull once and push
elsewhere, or ask someone else to do that. But even then we don't
really require any git repos, one can just «apt source» stuff. I'm
also not seeing how you can distinguish github from people's own
servers where you get no source for the software used, nor setup
instructions to replicate, etc, etc. In most cases you might not
even know what software is being used at all underneath!

This would end up with people delisting repos from the fields, while
still using them. Which personally I don't see as a huge loss, but I
assume Ian does?

To give some context, I was one of the so called "hard-liners" in the
vote to punt non-free from Debian. I think that's still an ideal I'd
like we pursued, even though I think the firmware case is a tolerable
exception (given that you end up running these blobs anyway even if
you do not update them). To me that leaves the non-free documentation,
which while bad, at least does not execute anything.

So, non-free tools that no one is forced to use are unnaceptable, but
documentation essential to do much work in Debian is not? Many GNU
packages have its entire docs in the non-free section (which I fully
agree with). In my mind a proper GR w/o the selective filtering would
imply we need to switch away too from most of those GNU packages,
starting with gcc, gdb, binutils, make, tar, bison, gawk, etc.

Thanks,
Guillem

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Scott Kitterman]

On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman  wrote:
>
>I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>
>Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
> recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>  of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>  Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
>
>I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>  unstable are hosted on Github.
>
>Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
>services
>  like Github it would pass.
>
>He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>
>I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>
>  [1]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>[2]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
>  [3]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>  
>  
>  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>  collective control.
>
>  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
>  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>
>  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>  still need to refer to proprietary systems.

It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain 
Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS.

Scott K

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Norbert Preining]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Ansgar wrote:
> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on

Indeed, that will happen.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Yao Wei]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for
> the project.

Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections?

https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002

Yao Wei


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Dr. Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> >   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> >
> >   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> >   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.
> 
> Does this include:
> 
>  - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
>  - non-free software for interacting with hardware,
>  - non-free backup systems?

As far as I'm concerned, yes. But note that the proposal is not to say "our
users must not be allowed to use github". It's "our developers must not be
allowed to force contributors to use github".

I think that is very reasonable, at least for tools (including services) where
free alternatives are available.

> AFAIK Debian uses all of these and you are probably expected to deal
> with them when contributing to relevant parts in Debian.

You may be correct. In that case, this GR, if passed, declares that we want to
change that. Is that controversial?

> >   This includes proprietary
> >   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
> >   collective control.
> 
> Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud
> services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)?
> Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant
> parts of the project.

Yes, it should mean that. Again, it doesn't mean people are not allowed to use
them. It means that people who don't want to use them can still contribute to
Debian. So for example, it would not be allowed to ignore the bts and only
accept bug reports through Twitter. 

> >   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> >   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
> >   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
> 
> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
> part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
> upstream.
> 
> I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated.

I agree with that. However, I'm not sure if it would make it harder. How does
this cooperation work, where you need your packaging to be on the same host as
upstream?

I usually download their release and work on that. It really doesn't matter
where I do that. Of course I report issues upstream in their issue tracker, but
that doesn't need to be on the host where my packaging is.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:19:46PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Count my vote in as a firm "No". This is going the same road as the
> "editorial changes" two decades ago, the first occasion where my
> motivation in Debian was damaged.

The problem with that GR was that at the time of voting, people did not realize
what they were deciding. With this GR that won't be the case, if people like
you explain what the problem is. So I don't believe it is a similar situation.

But please, in order to avoid the problem, elaborate on what the problem with
this proposal is.

Thanks,
Bas


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le jeudi 12 septembre 2019 à 13:30:24-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>
> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
>   recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>   of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>   Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
>
> I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>   unstable are hosted on Github.
>
> Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of services
>   like Github it would pass.
>
> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>
> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>
>   [1]:
>   
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
>   [3]:
>   
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.
>
>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
>   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>
>   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>   of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>   upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>   still need to refer to proprietary systems.

While I'm sensible to the motivations behind this idea, in my opinion¬:

 1. Restricting the platform where people would work on packaging stuff
is more prone do deprive us from workforce than achieve any good. This also
would complicate the interactions with our upstreams;
 2. Doing so by forbidding to see these in a metadata field looks like
mere wishful thinking to me;
 3. Promoting and defending Free Software doesn't mean refusing to rely
or touch any non-free software. We touch it each and every day;
 4. This kind of GR and the potential decision would just ostracize
ourselves.

Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for
the project.

I'm of course eager to change my mind if I missed something.

Best,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Marc Haber]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
> 
> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
> 
>   [1]:
>   
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
>   [3]:
>   
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   
>   
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

Count my vote in as a firm "No". This is going the same road as the
"editorial changes" two decades ago, the first occasion where my
motivation in Debian was damaged.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany|  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

[Ansgar]

>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.

Does this include:

 - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
 - non-free software for interacting with hardware,
 - non-free backup systems?

AFAIK Debian uses all of these and you are probably expected to deal
with them when contributing to relevant parts in Debian.

>   This includes proprietary
>   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.

Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud
services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)?
Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant
parts of the project.

>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
upstream.

I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated.

Ansgar

Debian and Non-Free Services

[Sam Hartman]

I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.

Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
  recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
  of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
  Ian disagreed with this recommendation.

I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
  unstable are hosted on Github.

Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of services
  like Github it would pass.

He proposed the following text for such a GR.

I think such a discussion is better on -project.

  [1]:
  
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
  [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
  [3]:
  
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
  
  
  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
  collective control.

  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.

  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
  still need to refer to proprietary systems.

Re: Debian and non-free

[cobaco]

On Saturday 2008-09-20, Ben Finney wrote:
> cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain
> > speach in a certain forum
>
> No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all*
> public forums. Generally, only a state has that power.

that's political censorship, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
details there's a lot more then just that covered by the term.

As an aside it's always been impossible to prohibit speech in '*any and all* 
public forums'. A government can get close, but at best they can make it 
livetreathingly dangerous.

> The crucial difference is that, in this case, only *specific* forums
> are denied for the speech in question. The ban does not extend further
> than those specific forums, hence it is not censorship.

specifically from the section on 'commercial censorship' (though that term 
obviously doesn't really fit debian):


Suppression of access to the means of dissemination of ideas can function as 
a form of censorship.


two of the examples given are:
- newspapers not publishing letters they don't agree with
- lecture halls not being rented to a particular speaker

Also note that we actually do allow mails from Sven IF forwarded (and thus 
approved) by a DD. So we don't actually have a total ban. 
-- 
Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Debian and non-free [censorship]

[MJ Ray]

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all*
> public forums. Generally, only a state has that power.

Not in the Collins English Dictionary.  Wildly OT and doesn't matter
for this subject, though.  Should I update my svenl FAQ?

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Kevin Mark]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
>>  non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
>>  documentation under a free license.
>>
>> main
>> non-free
>>   programs
>>   documents
>>   firmware
>>   art-work
>>   games
>
> I prefer a division by reasons (but it would be a lot more complex,
> so probably not feasible):
>
> non-free:
>   firmware
>   hardware/software "dilemma"
>   not-enough-free
>   trademarks, patents, non-commercial,



Instead of catagorizing things into simple catagories, why not simply
use some method to tag them. That way you can have more than one reason
and you dont need to figure out what one place to put them.
maybe use the debtags-like stuff with it? tagcoll?
-K
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|  my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian!  |
|___  Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[John Sullivan]

Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>
>> I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
>> the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
>> infrastructure to handle the machines.
>>   
> I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain
> name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the
>> existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free
>> software from there.
>>
>> I tried for years to convince Debian to do this, but I did not succeed.
>>   
> Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according to
> Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the non-free
> component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from there.
>
> I'm very curious what part of the website or Debian would be doing this for
> years, but I guess someone could ask Richard.

I haven't been following this thread super-close, so sorry if I missed
someone already throwing this out there.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

-- 
-John Sullivan
-http://www.wjsullivan.net
-GPG Key: AE8600B6


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Ben Finney]

cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain
> speach in a certain forum

No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all*
public forums. Generally, only a state has that power.

The crucial difference is that, in this case, only *specific* forums
are denied for the speech in question. The ban does not extend further
than those specific forums, hence it is not censorship.

-- 
 \   “The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of |
  `\  importance begins to regard as important the decisions he is |
_o__)allowed to take.” —C. Northcote Parkinson |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[Russ Allbery]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> It most certainly is not.  I can attest to that personally, having been
>> involved in and followed multiple FSF projects for many years.  It is
>> an expectation for all GNU projects.

> Expectation and advice, but not a rule and definitely not enforced.  I
> can attest to that personally for similar reasons.

It's treated and prioritized as a bug.  As with any persistant bug, I
expect it would be cause to replace maintainers if it went unaddressed for
too long and caused issues.  Certainly a fair bit of pressure is applied
to fix it when it comes to the FSF's attention in the cases that I've
seen, but I've never seen a GNU software maintainer refuse to fix it, so I
don't know what happens if it comes to that.

> Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were.  I meant that I think that
> sites like badvista.fsf.org are counter-productive.

Oh, okay, I completely misunderstood.  Sorry about that.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[cobaco]

On Thursday 2008-09-18, Joey Schulze wrote:
> David Paleino wrote:

> > However, I still believe that censorship is a BadThing©, and everyone
> > should be given the chance to speak. But, well, I don't know what
> > happened with Sven and I don't even want to touch the topic.
>
> It's not censorship 

Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain speach 
in a certain forum

-> that's clearly the case.

> (that's only Sven Luthers view that he seems to state in nearly every mail
> he sends to others),
>
> its a ban for well published reasons.  

so no it's not just Sven Luther's view that he's being censored

Now whether that particular censorship is a sensible thing or not is 
different question altogether (and NO I'm not interested in restarting that 
discussion).
-- 
Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[MJ Ray]

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...] the rule that the FSF has about not linking to
> >> any non-free software from their sites, [...]
> > That rule is a myth.
>
> It most certainly is not.  I can attest to that personally, having been
> involved in and followed multiple FSF projects for many years.  It is an
> expectation for all GNU projects.

Expectation and advice, but not a rule and definitely not enforced.
I can attest to that personally for similar reasons.

> > I think it's counter-productive to spend so much time badmouthing the
> > competition, but I'd be happy to see a link from fsf.org to debian that
> > noted we have different views on some aspects of freedom.
>
> I'm not bad-mouthing the competition.  [...]

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were.  I meant that I think that
sites like badvista.fsf.org are counter-productive.

Hope that clarifies,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[Russ Allbery]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] 

>> My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to
>> follow something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to
>> any non-free software from their sites, [...]
>
> That rule is a myth.

It most certainly is not.  I can attest to that personally, having been
involved in and followed multiple FSF projects for many years.  It is an
expectation for all GNU projects.

> Their campaign sites like http://badvista.fsf.org and
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ have links to and about non-free
> software - with commentary, but still links.

I would have thought that was fairly obviously not quite the same thing as
what I was talking about.  I didn't state the exact parameters of the rule
in detail, and it's not as simple as just never mentioning the existence
of any non-free software package, but I expected the audience here to be
reasonably familiar already with what I was talking about.

> I think it's counter-productive to spend so much time badmouthing the
> competition, but I'd be happy to see a link from fsf.org to debian that
> noted we have different views on some aspects of freedom.

I'm not bad-mouthing the competition.  As I already said, I'm an associate
FSF member, and I'm involved in several GNU software projects.  Please do
not attribute spurious motives to me without understanding what I'm
saying.

> Anyway, does this thread count as debian.org mentioning non-free.org?
> If so, we've lost already, actually.

No, of course not.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 11512 March 1977, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:

>> I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
>>  non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
>>  documentation under a free license.

>> main
>> non-free
>>   programs
>>   documents
>>   firmware
>>   art-work
>>   games
> I prefer a division by reasons (but it would be a lot more complex,
> so probably not feasible):
> non-free:
>   firmware
>   hardware/software "dilemma"
>   not-enough-free
>   trademarks, patents, non-commercial,
>   legal concerns, etc.
>   e.g. GFDL, various non-free compression programs
>   standards
>   and RFC. This is more a political decision
>   historical/emulators
>   i.e. old binaries/BIOS, which could maybe seen
>   as orphan works. Some fans could try to free
>   the code
>   free-alternative-not-yet-available
>   the worse category
>   free-alternative-available
>   - as netscape and areader, they should be removed
> when good alternative are available.
>   - as for flash: waiting for other project to mature
> (which is soon expected)
>   artwork
>   compatibility
>   - e.g. commercial fonts.
>   -I think JDK is in this category: available good
> alternative, but some people need it for
> compatibility.
>   - Maybe also some keys, certificates

Oi, people, how about doing something sensible instead? Like - fixing RC
bugs. Or playing some (free) games? Or go and drink some keys while
signing some beers... :)

Wasting time on non-free just for the sake of some random, completly
unimportant (IMO), possible endorsement of some random organisation that
can't even provide free documentation doesn't seem worth the effort.
Especially not at this time of the release cycle it is bad to draw away
manpower for something that, if it has to be done, should be done soon
after a release happened.

Also, if it ever gets decided that non-free should no longer be where it
is now (which we are *far* away from), it will be a pretty easy task to
setup an archive for it. And *then* will be the time to discuss how it
possibly might have an over-engineered layout.

-- 
bye, Joerg
Some NM:
"Essential: Yes" -- useful for a message when you do apt-get remove bash:


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[MJ Ray]

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] 
> My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to follow
> something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to any non-free
> software from their sites, [...]

That rule is a myth.  Their campaign sites like
http://badvista.fsf.org and http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ have
links to and about non-free software - with commentary, but still
links.  I think it's counter-productive to spend so much time
badmouthing the competition, but I'd be happy to see a link from
fsf.org to debian that noted we have different views on some aspects
of freedom.

There are also a few links on fsf.org but I'm not mentioning them on
this public mailing list else they'll just get removed.  One I would
like removed is http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/ -> Wiki ->
Atlassian Confluence.  (Yeah, GNU.org, proprietary webapp lovers and
AGPL advocates...)

Anyway, does this thread count as debian.org mentioning non-free.org?
If so, we've lost already, actually.
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[MJ Ray]

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
> just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.

I agree.  The FSF also have no "free document definition" or similar
and I believe their position on documents is a convenience measure in
part to help them get manuals published/sponsored by legacy publishers
who would otherwise cut out the manifesto.

[...]
> It would be nice if non-free was a simple umbrella for non-free-*.
> Possibly non-free/documentation and non-free/firmware?

Sounds good to me, as well as leaving the subdivision to the developer.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:


I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
 non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
 documentation under a free license.

main
non-free
  programs
  documents
  firmware
  art-work
  games


I prefer a division by reasons (but it would be a lot more complex,
so probably not feasible):

non-free:
firmware
hardware/software "dilemma"
not-enough-free
trademarks, patents, non-commercial,
legal concerns, etc.
e.g. GFDL, various non-free compression programs
standards
and RFC. This is more a political decision
historical/emulators
i.e. old binaries/BIOS, which could maybe seen
as orphan works. Some fans could try to free
the code
free-alternative-not-yet-available
the worse category
free-alternative-available
- as netscape and areader, they should be removed
  when good alternative are available.
- as for flash: waiting for other project to mature
  (which is soon expected)
artwork
compatibility
- e.g. commercial fonts.
-I think JDK is in this category: available good
  alternative, but some people need it for
  compatibility.
- Maybe also some keys, certificates


Anyway, reading the list of non-free software, I think we could remove
some of the package, e.g.
- album: there are a lot of free alternatives
- agrep: why not packing the old version?
- autodir: we need a free alternative!
- axe: is it obsolete? (last upload in 2006)
- crossvc: obolete?

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:59:54 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:

> The listmaster said, when i asked them to lift the ban on debian-vote
> for the DPL electoral campaign, arguing that the electoral campaign is
> an exercice in democracy, and thus anyone should be allowed to ask the
> candidates questions. To this the listmaster replied :
> 
>   In continuation of the policy which we outlined in the original ban,
>   we invite your posts only if sent by proxy using Debian Developer who
>   is willing to vouch for the appropriateness of the message relayed.
>   Thomas, Don, Cord
>   on behalf of the listmaster team
> 
> [..]
> 
> Please forward this verbatim, and don't try editing out (see definition
> of censorship) part of what i have to say, as you did previously.

I'm not a DD, so please don't ask me to bounce your mails.

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:53:48 +, Clint Adams wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > How about Debtags?
> 
> You can't include/exclude things from your sources.list based on
> debtags.

That could be a margin of improvement to apt-get (and aptitude, and $manager)...

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and non-free

[Clint Adams]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:10:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> non-free
>   programs
>   documents
>   firmware
>   art-work
>   games

I like it, except for the hyphen.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> How about Debtags?

You can't include/exclude things from your sources.list based on
debtags.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Joey Schulze]

David Paleino wrote:
> > I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your
> > message but one of Sven??? please don't forward messages that you don't
> > endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims).
> 
> Ok, sorry for that :)
> However, I still believe that censorship is a BadThing©, and everyone should 
> be
> given the chance to speak. But, well, I don't know what happened with Sven
> and I don't even want to touch the topic.

It's not censorship (that's only Sven Luthers view that he seems to
state in nearly every mail he sends to others), its a ban for well
published reasons.  If you are interested in this topic, please read
the relevant mails in the mailing list archives, mails mostly by Sven
Luther so you are able to evaluate his current mails, and most
importantly the statements by the listmaster and dam teams.  Solely
believing Sven Luthers rationale is like walking on very very thin
ice.

Unless you do know the background, please don't emit statements like the one 
above.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer.   -- Perl book


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:22:03 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your
> message but one of Sven… please don't forward messages that you don't
> endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims).

Ok, sorry for that :)
However, I still believe that censorship is a BadThing©, and everyone should be
given the chance to speak. But, well, I don't know what happened with Sven...
and I don't even want to touch the topic.

> > debian-multimedia.org is not maintained by debian, it is for patent
> > encumbered stuff, liable of a lawsuite or something such. It was done by
> > an ex-DD who left debian in discontent.
> 
> That's simply wrong. Christian Marillat is still DD:
> 
> $ finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [db.debian.org]
> uid=marillat,ou=users,dc=debian,dc=org
> First name: Christian
> Last name: Marillat
> Email: Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> URL: http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
> Fingerprint: 1D7F C53F 80F8 52C1 88F4 ED0B 07DC 563D 1F41 B907 
> Key block: finger marillat/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

I know.

And that's why my proposal of (slowly) splitting to non-free.org is still
there. debian-multimedia.org has had a great success, and is widely used, even
if not mentioned in debian.org. That's however mentioned in community forums,
mailing lists, usenet newsgroups, $community. That's what I hope for a
"non-free.org" if we start using it.

That is, if any DD could maintain that, obviously.

Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Fw: Debian and non-free

[Raphael Hertzog]

I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your
message but one of Sven… please don't forward messages that you don't
endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims).

> debian-multimedia.org is not maintained by debian, it is for patent
> encumbered stuff, liable of a lawsuite or something such. It was done by
> an ex-DD who left debian in discontent.

That's simply wrong. Christian Marillat is still DD:

$ finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[db.debian.org]
uid=marillat,ou=users,dc=debian,dc=org
First name: Christian
Last name: Marillat
Email: Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL: http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
Fingerprint: 1D7F C53F 80F8 52C1 88F4 ED0B 07DC 563D 1F41 B907 
Key block: finger marillat/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Charles Plessy]

Le Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 07:17:45PM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. 
> > > Someday
> > > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> > 
> > Non-free is for GNU documentation.
> 
> I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
> couple of sub-categories.  Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
> "non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
> "non-free" for the rest.

Hi Michael,

How about Debtags?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva]

Em Qua, 2008-09-17 às 08:15 +0200, David Paleino escreveu:
> If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their
> friend :)

Google is non-free.

Greetings.

-- 
marcot
Página: http://marcotmarcot.iaaeee.org/
Blog: http://marcotmarcot.blogspot.com/
Correio: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 25151920
Celular: 98116720
Endereço:
  Rua Turfa, 639/701
  Prado 30410-370
  Belo Horizonte/MG Brasil



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, Sep 17 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>> Michael Banck wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > Non-free is for GNU documentation.
>> > 
>> > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
>> > couple of sub-categories.  Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
>> > "non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
>> > "non-free" for the rest.
>> 
>> I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
>> just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.
>
> I would much prefer to mention the FSF directly, actually.  Not because
> it's about their software (or documentation), but because it's about
> their opinion about what is free.  So we get:
>
> - main (dfsg-free)
> - fsf-free (non-dfsg-free, but free according to fsf)
> - non-free-firmware
> - non-free (for all other classes)

I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
 non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
 documentation under a free license.

main
non-free
  programs
  documents
  firmware
  art-work
  games


manoj
-- 
If a man has done evil, let him not keep on doing it. Let him not create
an inclination to it. The accumulation of evil means suffering. 117
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fw: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

Inizio messsaggio inviato:

Data: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:42:08 +0200
Da: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-project@lists.debian.org
Oggetto: Re: Debian and non-free


On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:15:34AM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:09:22 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > > Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if
> > > that will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)
> > > 
> > > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal.
> > > Someday these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> > 
> > We already have had this discussion and even a GR about the removal of
> > non-free, and debian voted not to remove non-free. 
> 
> I hope in a free world, someday.

Clearly not in debian, freedom is nice when it applies to software, but
the more elementary freedom of speech and of holding a
non-accepted-by-the-powerful opinion is not in any way respected or of
any interest to debian.

> > The free software has progressed somewhat since then, but sadly the free
> > alternatives are not ready to replace the non-free solution in a stable
> > way. OpenOffice is no match in compatibility to MSOffice,
> 
> Is this OOo's fault?

To a point, yes, they could chose to have a mode where they do not set
each setting when editing a document coming from ms-office, thus
making the document in question un-useable when reopened by your
ms-office using collegues or customers or whatever.

> > and evince is regularly dying on documents acroread has no problem with.
> 
> Again, is this evince's fault? 

i don't know the reason for that, but i would say yes, if a software is
unstable and dies on you, it is the fault of the authors of said
software, and it should not be considered production quality.

> > The kernel is full of non-free firmware, debian voted on a GR which
> > sabotaged the effort of the kernel team on this non-free issue, and almost
> > brang the explosion of the kernel team
> 
> I believe that Debian will *always* be non-free "supporters" (i.e. those
> wanting to keep it in) and those who would like to drop non-free at all.

Well, i believethat non-free is important to debian, because it clearly
labels non-free stuff as such, and doesn't try to hide it inside the
'free' part, because, like the non-free firmware in the kernel, there is
not really an alternative.

It is interesting though to notice that in the non-free firmware vote,
those non-free opponenents sabotaged any possibility of a storng
standing point with the hardware vendors on this topic, in order to get
their point out, and that the voting DDs where mislead into thinking
what they voted was a good thing, while in reality the text said the
contrary of the appareant meaning.

> It's just matter of time: if my prevision is wrong (i.e. a "free" world in a
> tenth of years), it will come some "auto-magi-foo plugin" (closed), which will
> be used for "Web 3.0", or the like. And we'll start it again, over and over.

Well, i saw lot of progress in the 10 years i have been involved in
debian, but the fact is that non-free is there to stay, some things have
become free since them, and thus can be removed over time when a true
replacement is found. But at the same time, new non-free software
appears in new areas, or we becme more strict in our non-free definition
(GNU documentation for example, or non-free firmware) and non-free
allows us to separate this from the free section of the debian archive.

> The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And,
> regarding the concern of RMS about "publicizing" this location... well, we do
> *NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use
> that.

debian-multimedia.org is not maintained by debian, it is for patent
encumbered stuff, liable of a lawsuite or something such. It was done by
an ex-DD who left debian in discontent.

> If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their
> friend :)

Face it, most people don't care about non-free, and they will wonder why
this shiny new debian doesn't boot on their hardware.

And the fundation documents are clear in their meaning, the debian OS is
free software, but we also support the users of non-free software by
providing infrastructure allowing them to use it in the easiest and
nicest way. This is what the fundation document say, and this is how a
majority of DDs read it, as was proven in the non-free-removal GR a
couple of years ago.

Please forward this message to 

Re: Debian and non-free

[Bas Wijnen]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > 
> > > Non-free is for GNU documentation.
> > 
> > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
> > couple of sub-categories.  Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
> > "non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
> > "non-free" for the rest.
> 
> I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
> just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.

I would much prefer to mention the FSF directly, actually.  Not because
it's about their software (or documentation), but because it's about
their opinion about what is free.  So we get:

- main (dfsg-free)
- fsf-free (non-dfsg-free, but free according to fsf)
- non-free-firmware
- non-free (for all other classes)

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian and non-free

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > 
> > Non-free is for GNU documentation.
> 
> I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
> couple of sub-categories.  Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
> "non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
> "non-free" for the rest.

I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.

  non-free-docs
  non-free-firmware
  non-free

It would be nice if non-free was a simple umbrella for non-free-*.
Possibly non-free/documentation and non-free/firmware?

While the decision of what is firmware, documentation, or other should
be policy-guided, it would be left to the developer to decide which
category best applied.

-- 
John H. Robinson, IV  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http  
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type.  spiders.html  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Michael Banck]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> 
> Non-free is for GNU documentation.

I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
couple of sub-categories.  Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
"non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
"non-free" for the rest.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Yavor Doganov]

В Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:16:57 +0200, Daniel Baumann написа:

> were unaware that they also have to leave the 'Copyright (C) Daniel
> Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' lines aka author information, and they
> never fixed it.

Are you talking about
?

r92 | bbrazil | 2006-11-05 20:02:53 +0200 (нд, 05 ное 2006) | 2 lines

more copyright stuff


r88 | bbrazil | 2006-11-05 13:13:19 +0200 (нд, 05 ное 2006) | 2 lines

give credit to debian-live


If so, it looks like they're no more "pathetic" than other human
beings in this respect; everyone makes mistakes and a diligent person
ought to make everything possible to correct her mistakes...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Filipus Klutiero wrote:


I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
infrastructure to handle the machines.
  
I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the 
domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:


;-) I've no problem for wasting few time and few money.



Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the
existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free
software from there.

I tried for years to convince Debian to do this, but I did not succeed.
  
Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according 
to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the 
non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from 
there.


I'm very curious what part of the website or Debian would be doing this 
for years, but I guess someone could ask Richard.


IMHO, if we create the non-free.org, it should help Debian to better
manage the different queues and "policies".
Endorsement of FSF is good, but not so important.

Anyway:
- I prefer the freedom to choice the software (anyway free software
  is better)
- without non-free software (non-free printer driver), do you think
  RMS would have created FSF, GNU and GPL?
  So I want non-free.org as a method to push writing/improving
  free alternatives (or forcing protocol designed to open protocols,
  but this is more difficult).

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And,
> regarding the concern of RMS about "publicizing" this location... well, we do
> *NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use
> that.
> 
> If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their
> friend :)

You're out of touch with the reality. The reality is that non-free support is
integrated in our installer because some nonfree firmware might be needed
by the hardware of some of our users.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Marc Haber]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:40:17PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> In another 10 years (less, I hope!), the world will be more conscious about
> Free Software, and its principles. And everyone will be suspicious over
> closed-source. Am I a dreamer?

Yes.

The closed-source software word is accelerating faster than we do,
they're going to pass us sooner or later. The next Killer Argument
against Free Software is that it is probably never going to be legally
able to play a movie from BluRay disc because the committees
developing the standard didn't goof up this time.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[Joey Schulze]

Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the
>> existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free
>> software from there.
>>
>> I tried for years to convince Debian to do this, but I did not succeed.
>>   
> Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according  
> to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the  
> non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from  
> there.
>
> I'm very curious what part of the website or Debian would be doing this  
> for years, but I guess someone could ask Richard.

non-free is mentioned on packages.debian.org
non-free is mentioned in release documentation
non-free is mentioned during the installer for users to add (I think)

Regards,

Joey

-- 
Of course, I didn't mean that, which is why I didn't say it.
What I meant to say, I said.  -- Thomas Bushnell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Martin Schulze]

David Paleino wrote:
> Probably :)
> If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to
> *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd
> happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work,
> university, $foo]).

> Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if 
> that
> will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)

I wonder if the FSF will ignore the fact that Debian has removed non-free
documentation from its distribution that the FSF considers free, i.e. their
own documentation distributed under the - under Debians view - non-free
GNU FDL.  Can or will they endorse a distribution that strips off their
own documentation?

> Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)

Non-free is for GNU documentation.

*megasigh*

Regards,

Joey

-- 
Of course, I didn't mean that, which is why I didn't say it.
What I meant to say, I said.  -- Thomas Bushnell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:09:22 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if
> > that will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)
> > 
> > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> 
> We already have had this discussion and even a GR about the removal of
> non-free, and debian voted not to remove non-free. 

I hope in a free world, someday.

> The free software has progressed somewhat since then, but sadly the free
> alternatives are not ready to replace the non-free solution in a stable
> way. OpenOffice is no match in compatibility to MSOffice,

Is this OOo's fault?

> and evince is regularly dying on documents acroread has no problem with.

Again, is this evince's fault? 

> The kernel is full of non-free firmware, debian voted on a GR which sabotaged
> the effort of the kernel team on this non-free issue, and almost brang the
> explosion of the kernel team

I believe that Debian will *always* be non-free "supporters" (i.e. those
wanting to keep it in) and those who would like to drop non-free at all.

It's just matter of time: if my prevision is wrong (i.e. a "free" world in a
tenth of years), it will come some "auto-magi-foo plugin" (closed), which will
be used for "Web 3.0", or the like. And we'll start it again, over and over.

The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And,
regarding the concern of RMS about "publicizing" this location... well, we do
*NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use
that.

If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their
friend :)

Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:45:01 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

> Essentially, this has gone backwards and forwards for years. Although 
> David's wording is good, now is not the time - we need to get Lenny out.

Mine is a general discussion, Lenny is not concerned, and probably neither
Squeeze, nor (Squeeze + 1) :)

> > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> 
> At this point, the pain of setting up parallel infrastructure and so on 
> will outweigh the gain. Situations with binary firmware blobs are 
> becoming better, though the path to full freedom is probably asymptotic 
> :)

Ahah, probably :)

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[Russ Allbery]

Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according
> to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the
> non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from
> there.

My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to follow
something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to any non-free
software from their sites, which would mean that we couldn't even tell our
users that non-free existed in standard documentation.

Personally, I think this is not a useful place for Debian to go, even if
Debian itself stopped running the non-free archive.  I also don't think
that FSF endorsement of Debian is sufficiently useful to Debian to be
worth the trouble (and I say that as an FSF member).

I also don't think that the "free Debian" projects are a sign of the FSF
wasting resources on this in any significant fashion.  The last few that
have shown up have sounded like projects that people have started on their
own and asked for FSF blessing for.  They look to me remarkably like the
many vanity Linux distributions that start and fail routinely by the
dozens and generally aren't worth paying much attention to.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

[Filipus Klutiero]

I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
infrastructure to handle the machines.
  
I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the 
domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:



Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the
existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free
software from there.

I tried for years to convince Debian to do this, but I did not succeed.
  
Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according 
to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the 
non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from 
there.


I'm very curious what part of the website or Debian would be doing this 
for years, but I guess someone could ask Richard.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to
> *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd

You'd better.  If the GR only has two choices (remove non-free to the
bitbucket and the default), the outcome is pretty clear: the default.

> happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work,
> university, $foo]).

contrib is to go to the bitbucket too?  Wow, that's bold :-)

> Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if 
> that
> will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)

Now, that as a second option to the GR might even fly, but only if we get an
email from DSA that says they can and will do it.  Otherwise, well...

> Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)

I seriously doubt that, but as long as we have contrib to dump installer
packages for firmware, game data packagers, some fonts, processor microcode
and other such stuff, we could manage without non-free.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > No.  I agree with you, and actually proposed a General Resolution 8
> > years ago to get rid of non-free software:
> > 
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/06/msg00549.html
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
> > 

I seem to recall this earlier, in 1999 when RMS first raised this:

Vanity googling amacater and RMS revealed the thread, including comments 
by Ian Lynagh.

The installer now does almost exactly what I asked then :)

Essentially, this has gone backwards and forwards for years. Although 
David's wording is good, now is not the time - we need to get Lenny out.

gNewsense being based on Ubuntu (itself non-free from RMS' viewpoint) 
seems just plain wrong to me - but that's me. It is notable that Mark 
Shuttleworth has effectively ceased work on Gobuntu which is the Ubuntu 
parallel. 

> Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if 
> that
> will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)
> 
> Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> 

At this point, the pain of setting up parallel infrastructure and so on 
will outweigh the gain. Situations with binary firmware blobs are 
becoming better, though the path to full freedom is probably asymptotic 
:)

Andy - running GNU/Linux :)




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Gunnar Wolf]

Florian Weimer dijo [Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:57:43PM +0200]:
> > Does RMS know all this? I don't think he'd support such kind of
> > behaviour :)
> 
> Stallman tends to ignore moral rights/droit d'auteur concepts.

Except, of course, when "moral rights" should prepend the Linux kernel
with the GNU/ userspace ;-)

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> Please don't take this as a provoking mail, I'm in NM, and God knows how many
> times I've read the Social Contract (and DFSG, and DMUP, and $policy) before
> applying :)...
> Did I miss something?

No.  I agree with you, and actually proposed a General Resolution 8
years ago to get rid of non-free software:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/06/msg00549.html
http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008

It was never voted on because the project secretary disappeared, if
memory serves.

There was also a vote in 2004 on a different resolution:

http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002

I guess this means that it's about time for another once-every-4-years
vote :-)

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > vote :-)
> 
> Probably :)
> If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to
> *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd
> happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work,
> university, $foo]).

Well, of course removing non-free from Debian and moving non-free to
non-free.org are pretty much the same thing, are they not?

The question is whether Debian as an institution supports it, not
whether humans that happen to be Debian developers do so.

> Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)

I think otherwise.  8 years ago, people made the same arguments.  Back
then it was things like Netscape, I think.  Now we are talking flash.

There's already a lot of stuff people use over at
debian-multimedia.org and it's not stopping people from getting to
it.  Nor should it.  A simple line in a config file and you've got
access to flash, even if it's on suspiciousserver.ru.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:27:28 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > > vote :-)
> > 
> > Probably :)
> > If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR
> > to *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd
> > happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work,
> > university, $foo]).
> 
> Well, of course removing non-free from Debian and moving non-free to
> non-free.org are pretty much the same thing, are they not?
> 
> The question is whether Debian as an institution supports it, not
> whether humans that happen to be Debian developers do so.

You're right, point for you.

> > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
> > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
> 
> I think otherwise.  8 years ago, people made the same arguments.  Back
> then it was things like Netscape, I think.  Now we are talking flash.

Now is different. IMVHO the world is slowly adopting free software. In this
exact historical moment, we see laptops, netbooks and desktops sold by
*vendors* with GNU/Linux (be it Ubuntu, Xandros, or the like) pre-installed.
That's good news! I start hearing university colleagues, *Microsoft Windows*
users, asking what Linux is (the more informed ask me about Ubuntu). Public
institutions start using Free Software (be it just to contain costs!). This *is*
a world changing, IMHO.

In another 10 years (less, I hope!), the world will be more conscious about
Free Software, and its principles. And everyone will be suspicious over
closed-source. Am I a dreamer?

> There's already a lot of stuff people use over at debian-multimedia.org and
> it's not stopping people from getting to it.  Nor should it.  A simple line
> in a config file and you've got access to flash, even if it's on
> suspiciousserver.ru.

I got your point here. But that's because people have grown up with Windows,
MP3s, WMVs and MSN. I can promise my sons (I'm 21 -- it still takes a bit!)
won't ever touch a closed-source software ;) -- and that's the generation that
will support Free Software in the future. A generation which will grow up with
our principles (be them the 4 freedoms according to FSF, also "expanded" to
real life possibly) in mind.

Ok ok, I stop here my mail. I'm starting dreaming ABetterWorld©, but probably
it's just because I'm too tired and sleepy (23:38 here).


Just my thoughts,
David


-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and non-free

[David Paleino]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > Please don't take this as a provoking mail, I'm in NM, and God knows how
> > many times I've read the Social Contract (and DFSG, and DMUP, and $policy)
> > before applying :)...
> > Did I miss something?
> 
> No.  I agree with you, and actually proposed a General Resolution 8
> years ago to get rid of non-free software:
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/06/msg00549.html
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
> 
> It was never voted on because the project secretary disappeared, if
> memory serves.
> 
> There was also a vote in 2004 on a different resolution:
> 
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
> 
> I guess this means that it's about time for another once-every-4-years
> vote :-)

Probably :)
If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to
*completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd
happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work,
university, $foo]).

Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if that
will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)

Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)

M2C,
David

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian and non-free

[Florian Weimer]

* David Paleino:

> Does RMS know all this? I don't think he'd support such kind of
> behaviour :)

Stallman tends to ignore moral rights/droit d'auteur concepts.

The GPL requires does not require preservation of the original copyright
notices.  It requires "appropriate" copyright notices, but the GPL
grants me a conditional exploitation right, so I've got a copyright
interest in the work, and could put my name on it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian and non-free

[Joey Schulze]

Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, it would have helped if :
> 
>   1) we didn't vote a GR worded in such a way as to fully discourage the
>   existing kernel team to work on the non-free firmware problems.

[..]

> But this not being the way which was chosen, what do you expect ? In
> france we say "qui seme le vent recolte la tempete". And let me say that
> this i a highly controversial point in debian, and because a few guys
> say it should happen doesn't mean debian will follow this opinion in a
> GR, as the previous non-free and non-free firmware GRs have shown.

[..]

> Sadly,
> 
> Sven Luther

-- 
( ) go ahead, you can blog everything in this mail
( ) please don't blog the personal stuff in this mail
( ) this conversation never happened


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]