Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:38:31AM -0700, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Moore, Paul wrote: Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure. i look at the 'success' of RedHat's contrib, and shudder. Some packages are good, but some are very bad, and usually there's multiple variations of the same package done by different people. One of Debian's strengths is that, although anyone _can_ make a deb, most don't have to because so much is included in the Debian system or associated and packaged by official developers. It does not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK. Umm, LyX is DFSG compliant, it uses a modified GPL (the you may not link against closed source code sections were removed, check /usr/doc/lyx/copyright). It's only in contrib because it currently links to something non-free; otherwise, it'd be non-free or KDEd itself. If we strike out not only non-free, we'll lose programs like LyX that depend on non-free, and others that are licensed to be not only libre but gratis as well. Yes, they can be installed to /usr/local, but that loses the advantages of Debian packages: managed through a common interface (apt) and very likely to work well with Debian. Other packages may follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian. I'd support this GR if it didn't remove needed functionality that currently exists only in non-free. Make vrms standard, put non-free on non-free.debian.org, whatever, but keep the ability for Debian maintainers to provide packages that _officially_ work with the Debian system, with a centralized place to report bugs in the Debian packaging. -- finger for GPG public key. pgp9hgURaUk7i.pgp Description: PGP signature
OT: GNU (was: Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian)
Moore, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The endless issues over free vs non-free and other license-related issues makes Debian look more like license nit-pickers than anything else. This doesn't seem to me to be a good image to have. It's not done the GNU project much good, and it would be a shame if Debian had the same problems. What is wrong with the image of the GNU project (or the FSF for that matter)? Isn't everything they do just a consequence of what they hold up as their ideals? I'd personally really hate to see the FSF getting in any way less consequent as they are now. Regards, Lars
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Matthew, and Debian Folks, On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Matthew Dalton wrote, in part: The real change is that non-free will no longer be covered by the same bug tracking system as the rest of Debian. This will have the most effect on the packages in the contrib section that depend on packages in non-free. This is the main reason for my objection to the proposal. The non-free section would turn into something similar to the debian KDE site, except to my knowledge there isn't any package on the official debian site that depends on a KDE package. Though I too am not a developer, I must add my voice to those opposed to this GR. It is not a good thing. I am a vigorous and noisey supporter of Debian and the GNU projects. Debian, and Linux, need applications that are _stable_, useful, and distributed WITH Debian. I am afraid this can only injure Debian. The one thing I dislike about other distributions is that I never know whether a package will work, fail, or eat my system. I have never had the latter untoward experience with any package distributed by the Debian community, and Debian packages mostly work as advertised. Are there good, nonidealogical reasons for the GR? --David David Teague, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Because software support is free, timely, useful, technically accurate, and friendly. (I hope this is all of the above.)
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure. Note the _have to_ above. Who will do this? It does not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK. Or when XForms goes DFSG-compliant. But there's already something missing. What about next year's great tool that we don't have a free replacement for? Other packages may follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian. Why will this change? Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. Insider information? What makes you say this? Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license? -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure. Note the _have to_ above. Who will do this? Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project! Anyway, since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those archives and the bug tracking system? not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK. Or when XForms goes DFSG-compliant. But there's already something missing. What about next year's great tool that we don't have a free replacement for? Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things themselves can pay money to a consultant. If there is enough interest, they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should everyone expect a free lunch? Other packages may follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian. Why will this change? I don't understand your question. If a developer wants her software in Debian, she might choose to write a DFSG compliant license. Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. Insider information? What makes you say this? Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license? Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but: the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since, KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that debate. There are many types of users that depend on Debian. Most of them probably have a mixture of motives that include both the political (DFSG) and the practical (apt rules!). However, the argument that Debian should be worried about keeping all the users is not one that I personally buy. Thanks. Syrus. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Syrus C Nemat-Nasser, PhD| Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials UCSD Department of Physics | UCSD Department of Mechanical [EMAIL PROTECTED] |and Aerospace Engineering
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 Jun 2000, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: There is a General Resolution proposed by developer John Goerzen that is under discussion on both debian-devel and debian-project, maybe also a few others that I am not aware of. The nature of the GR is to amend the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. This may be a good time to transition support for the non-free packages to an organization outside Debian. I imagine that a number of companies would jump at the chance to host the bug tracking system for Debian non-free. I sincerely hope we don't have to do this. Regardless of your feelings about non-free, it's still hosted in a non-commercial way at the moment. If a company decided to host it, I'd always have a niggling fear at the back of my mind saying What if they wanted to charge a 'nominal fee' for the 'service' of letting me download from non-free?. The GPL would let them do this, for one. I would much prefer if some Debian developers got together and hosted a non-free archive, in the (IMHO unpleasant) situation where this became necessary. There has been talk of this; I hope it won't come to that, because it's still more difficult for users to find, it's a waste of resources, and concentrating on linking its quality to that of Debian's would be doubly hard. Think about this: With the distribution of tools such as Borland's Kylix, there may soon be a flood of non-free Linux applications. Many of these may use a shareware or demo-ware distribution strategy to maximize exposure. Also, with Debian and Debian-derived distributions becoming more popular, there should be Debianized versions of most commercial offerings. Even a separate non-free archive couldn't distribute those; at present non-free can include pretty much anything that *can* be distributed freely. If commercial software companies want to distribute Debian packages of their programs for a fee, they're still going to have to do it themselves. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure. Note the _have to_ above. Who will do this? Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project! Thanks for adding to the load. My point is that I don't like a GR that relies on vapor-ware or vapor-support for the continued support of users who use contrib or non-free packages. Kiss those contrib packages goodbye too remember. Anyway, since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those archives and the bug tracking system? Debian doesn't need extra resources for the current non-free archives. That's not the point. It's whether whether Debian can, it's whether it should. not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK. Or when XForms goes DFSG-compliant. But there's already something missing. What about next year's great tool that we don't have a free replacement for? Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things themselves can pay money to a consultant. Or simply install RedHat. If there is enough interest, they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should everyone expect a free lunch? Debian is free. Why would our support of contrib or even non-free packages be charged for? Other packages may follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian. Why will this change? I don't understand your question. If a developer wants her software in Debian, she might choose to write a DFSG compliant license. My point is this. Do you think the proposed change will further entice developers into licensing DFSG-compliant? Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. Insider information? What makes you say this? Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license? Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but: the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since, KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that debate. Out of date. The QPL is not compatible with the GPL, even if both licenses are DFSG-compliant. There are many types of users that depend on Debian. Most of them probably have a mixture of motives that include both the political (DFSG) and the practical (apt rules!). However, the argument that Debian should be worried about keeping all the users is not one that I personally buy. I'm worried about loosing contrib, waisting _more_ time supporting some non-free or contrib software, and the explosions of badly-made and incompatible deb packages that may result. -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure. Note the _have to_ above. Who will do this? Who maintains those packages now? Debian is a volunteer project! Anyway, since one argument is about the cost of maintaining the archives, perhaps non-free supporters should raise money to pay Debian for hosting those archives and the bug tracking system? That isn't the main argument of the GR's supporters, and money is not the issue. Maintaining packages is a miniscule load compared to maintaining an archive, a bug tracking system, and so on. One of the people who does that for Debian now indicated that he thought it would take about a month to set up and a couple of days a week thereafter. This is not something that even skilled maintainers should consider lightly. Here's a thought: users that can't figure out how to install things themselves can pay money to a consultant. If there is enough interest, they can pay a company to certify the quality of some Debian packages. If users step up to the plate, they will have options. But, why should everyone expect a free lunch? *sigh* They have one now. Why shouldn't they? Debian's free-beer as well as free-speech. Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. Insider information? What makes you say this? Have the KDE people indicated they would modify the license? Since I don't actually use KDE, my information may be out of date, but: the new libQT meets DFSG requirements according to Bruce Perens. Since, KDE 2.0 is linked against the new QT libraries, it will be DFSG compliant unless there are still some questions of other license violations in the code. I don't know the details, and I'm not presently up to date on that debate. No, you've missed the fact that, although both are DFSG-free in themselves, the GPL and the QPL are incompatible, and that the KDE people have refused to add the exception to the GPL that would make it legally distributable *at all*. This has been gone over *many* times, and this probably isn't the place for that debate; there was a recent flamewar on Slashdot if you want an introduction to it. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Andrew George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think this is a good thing. Debian is a great distribution, and I do agree, the project shouldn't be wasting time with bug trackking (except where its the deb that got a problem). Um, I think that's one of the main goals of the project :) We contribute a lot back to upstream authors, and it's part of our goal to support the free software community. Also, I hope no-one takes this the wrong way, but I always assumed that the developer list would be talking about finally turning potatoe stable, or maybe addressing he fact that it's been over a year between Slink and Potatoe. Oh, believe me, it is, at great length. ;) (PS the fact that Woody exists at all while Potatoe is still 'unstable' is another thing I would have thought the developers would be discussing) It's kind of necessary; potato's in a code freeze, and those of us who track current software (and some who need current software or packages that have been removed from potato due to release-critical bugs) want an unstable distribution that doesn't have the restrictions imposed by a freeze. There's still progress on potato, nonetheless ... -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Igor Mozetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway, if this resolution is passed, I will consider switching to another distribution. I have to maintain 11 Debian machines, and even so spend quite some time on proper configuration. Before such a move, I would like some informed suggestions about possible alternatives: Suse, Mandrake, Slackware, ... ? My main priorities are: 1) stability, 2) security, 3) smooth upgrade, 4) easy configuration, 5) not necessarily bleeding edge. In short: Debian +easier configuration -ideology -:) Maybe one of the Debian derivatives, like Stormix or Corel, might be for you? I've no experience of them personally, though (and intend to stay with Debian proper whatever the outcome). -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Colin Watson wrote: Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 Jun 2000, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: There is a General Resolution proposed by developer John Goerzen that is under discussion on both debian-devel and debian-project, maybe also a few others that I am not aware of. The nature of the GR is to amend the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. This may be a good time to transition support for the non-free packages to an organization outside Debian. I imagine that a number of companies would jump at the chance to host the bug tracking system for Debian non-free. I sincerely hope we don't have to do this. Regardless of your feelings about non-free, it's still hosted in a non-commercial way at the moment. If a company decided to host it, I'd always have a niggling fear at the back of my mind saying What if they wanted to charge a 'nominal fee' for the 'service' of letting me download from non-free?. The GPL would let them do this, for one. I would much prefer if some Debian developers got together and hosted a non-free archive, in the (IMHO unpleasant) situation where this became necessary. There has been talk of this; I hope it won't come to that, because it's still more difficult for users to find, it's a waste of resources, and concentrating on linking its quality to that of Debian's would be doubly hard. Think about this: With the distribution of tools such as Borland's Kylix, there may soon be a flood of non-free Linux applications. Many of these may use a shareware or demo-ware distribution strategy to maximize exposure. Also, with Debian and Debian-derived distributions becoming more popular, there should be Debianized versions of most commercial offerings. Even a separate non-free archive couldn't distribute those; at present non-free can include pretty much anything that *can* be distributed freely. If commercial software companies want to distribute Debian packages of their programs for a fee, they're still going to have to do it themselves. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Certainly I second Colin. This would be the craziest thing ever, having what Syrus Nemat-Nasser sees as good
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: There are many types of users that depend on Debian. Most of them probably have a mixture of motives that include both the political (DFSG) and the practical (apt rules!). However, the argument that Debian should be worried about keeping all the users is not one that I personally buy. I'm worried about loosing contrib, waisting _more_ time supporting some non-free or contrib software, and the explosions of badly-made and incompatible deb packages that may result. Point taken. I, however, am not worried about this at all. If the core Debian distribution is bulletproof, other distributions can choose to provide added value such as those extra packages that you might need. Although this has been debated a lot, back when Bruce Perens was running the show, there was an idea that Debian should be a completely free (as in DFSG) base than anyone could use to build other distributions, either commercial or non-commercial. That is not the Debian of today. I like today's Debian because it provides the best support for scientific computing that I have found. I have always liked Debian because of the commitment to free software. Anyway, whatever the outcome of this GR, I will still be using Debian. I won't worry about what others might do when I make up my own mind. Cheers. Syrus. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Syrus C Nemat-Nasser, PhD| Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials UCSD Department of Physics | UCSD Department of Mechanical [EMAIL PROTECTED] |and Aerospace Engineering
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: I'm worried about loosing contrib, waisting _more_ time supporting some non-free or contrib software, and the explosions of badly-made and incompatible deb packages that may result. Point taken. I, however, am not worried about this at all. If the core Debian distribution is bulletproof, other distributions can choose to provide added value such as those extra packages that you might need. Yeah, but I didn't join Debian to use another distribution based on it. I don't think shifting our user base to Debian-based distributions makes us better. I like today's Debian because it provides the best support for scientific computing that I have found. Same here. I have always liked Debian because of the commitment to free software. Anyway, whatever the outcome of this GR, I will still be using Debian. We'll see if this causes a project split if it passes. I hope not, but if it does I might end up on the other side. :-( Peter -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:25:13AM +, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: There is a General Resolution proposed by developer John Goerzen that is under discussion on both debian-devel and debian-project, maybe also a few others that I am not aware of. The nature of the GR is to amend the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. For the curious, the resolution is archived at http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0006/msg00215.html If you read the entire thread, there's large swaths that decend into a pissing contest between some supporter and some opponent that can probably be skipped. There is also a second draft at http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0006/msg00260.html On my machine, i currently have 36 non-free packages installed. i also have 15 contrib packages installed (since contrib packages depend on non-free packages, these will be of very limited usefulness). Personally, i'll miss lyx (contrib, needs libforms), gimp1.1-nonfree (compressed gifs are nice for webpages, png unfortunately isn't there yet), the various fonts, portsentry, and maybe unzip (how's miniunzip? anyone know?) out of those. I'll also miss Netscape until Mozilla gets up to speed (no, it's not there yet). For the curious, the command i used to find non-free packages was: grep-status -F Status ' install' | grep-status -s Package -F Section \ non-free - Intense debate is already under way. Whether you are for and against the resolution, let your voice be heard. While getting rid of non-free is a noble goal, i don't feel that Debian can do it now without losing support from some parts of the Free Software community (look at the reaction over KDE, and then think of Netscape, LyX, etc etc etc) and without losing a good measure of functionality. i also question the removal of software that is open source but not DFSG free because of restrictions on commercial sale. -- finger for GPG public key. pgp1BUoaQ68Rz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:08:02PM -0500, Brad wrote: For the curious, the command i used to find non-free packages was: grep-status -F Status ' install' | grep-status -s Package -F Section \ non-free - or you could install the vrms package. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgprlMdtiy0Ic.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
From: Brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] While getting rid of non-free is a noble goal, i don't feel that Debian can do it now without losing support from some parts of the Free Software community (look at the reaction over KDE, and then think of Netscape, LyX, etc etc etc) and without losing a good measure of functionality. i also question the removal of software that is open source but not DFSG free because of restrictions on commercial sale. I agree with this sentiment. Debian is by far my preferred Linux distribution, but the DFSG free or nothing attitude is a little hard-core for me. I don't see any problem with segregating non-DFSG-free stuff from the fully DFSG-free software, but rejecting it altogether from Debian does little to help. I am aware that one of the key distinguishing features of Debian is that it is a strictly free system - however, focusing solely on this misses the equally important point, that Debian is by far the most robust and consistent Linux distribution, which is a strong argument that free software can and does produce quality software. The endless issues over free vs non-free and other license-related issues makes Debian look more like license nit-pickers than anything else. This doesn't seem to me to be a good image to have. It's not done the GNU project much good, and it would be a shame if Debian had the same problems. The present situation is a good compromise between ideals and realism. Why change something that works? Paul.
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. One huge and widely used non-free package is MySQL. I think that MySQL and Netscape will hit people the hardest. As a suggestion to people, check out the vrms package which can quickly and easily tell you if/what non-free packages you're using. -- Regards, | Do you like browsing the web, independent of whatever .| type of computer you are talking to on the other end? Randy| Enhancements to public standards and protocols is the | way the WWW will be turned into a proprietary nightmare.
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Where can we get more information on this subject? Where is this being debated, if at all? --- Chuan-kai Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a heads-up guys, There is a General Resolution proposed by developer John Goerzen that is under discussion on both debian-devel and debian-project, maybe also a few others that I am not aware of. The nature of the GR is to amend the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. Now it looks likely that the GR will be able to collect the 5 sponsors necessary for it to be recognized as a formal resolution, and after two weeks of open debate, a general vote will decide how this comes out. Only developers can vote, but as this will have profound impacts to the entire project, non-developers should also pay close attention. Intense debate is already under way. Whether you are for and against the resolution, let your voice be heard. -- Chuan-kai Lin -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:44:56AM +0100, Moore, Paul wrote: I agree with this sentiment. Debian is by far my preferred Linux distribution, but the DFSG free or nothing attitude is a little hard-core for me. I don't see any problem with segregating non-DFSG-free stuff from the fully DFSG-free software, but rejecting it altogether from Debian does little to help. [. . .] The endless issues over free vs non-free and other license-related issues makes Debian look more like license nit-pickers than anything else. This doesn't seem to me to be a good image to have. It's not done the GNU project much good, and it would be a shame if Debian had the same problems. I don't want to make any invidious comparisons here -- well, OK, maybe I do. In any case, I want to make it particularly and explicitly clear that I am not saying people who try to promote Free software are communists. _I_ try to promote Free software, and I doubt many people would paint me as a communist. Still, a comparison with a period of U.S. history is instructive. (I know that I'm over-simplifying below, but this is hardly the place for a full scholarly treatment.) In the Soviet period, the various communist and socialist factions in the U.S. did as much harm to themselves by constant internal bickering over ideological purity, as was done to them by external forces (like HUAC and Jumpin' Joe). That is, the Wobblies and the Communist Party of America, for instance, couldn't agree on many details of doctrine, and spent as much time sniping at one another as they did arguing for the wider political goals that they shared. The effect of this was that the broad and generous large-union support they once enjoyed got frayed. When the Red panic took over, unions simply abandoned the bunch of bickering fools for the larger, established parties. In other words, part of the reason the U.S's institutional political left is to the right of many countries' right wing is because the U.S. political left collapsed into squabbling. One can give similar accounts of the splintering of some Protestant sects, or of some flavours of Islam. It strikes me that the license-purity leg-lifting contests run the risk of ending up similarly. Projects rather grander than Debian sometimes manage to drive themselves to irrelevance and obscurity with this sort of inflexibility. Debian is pretty rigourous about software freedom already. What is to be achieved by making things yet more difficult in the few cases where someone wants a non-free package? (The bickering also reminds me of the nastiness around *BSD. But let's let sleeping dogs lie.) For the record, the above sentiments are my own, and do not represent the opinion of the BPL. -- Andrew Sullivan Computer Services [EMAIL PROTECTED]Burlington Public Library +1 905 639 3611 x158 2331 New Street Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R 1J4
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
I don't think this is a good thing. Debian is a great distribution, and I do agree, the project shouldn't be wasting time with bug trackking (except where its the deb that got a problem). But to do this on a philosophical point is only going to cause problems for the user base and make it less attractive to new users. Personally, if things like Netscape are removed from the archieves, then all I'm going to do is install my own tarballs, the negative effect of that (and the fact that it reduces teh effect of the deb database) can't help Debian. Also, I hope no-one takes this the wrong way, but I always assumed that the developer list would be talking about finally turning potatoe stable, or maybe addressing he fact that it's been over a year between Slink and Potatoe. (PS the fact that Woody exists at all while Potatoe is still 'unstable' is another thing I would have thought the developers would be discussing) my 2 cents Andrew --- Chuan-kai Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a heads-up guys, There is a General Resolution proposed by developer John Goerzen that is under discussion on both debian-devel and debian-project, maybe also a few others that I am not aware of. The nature of the GR is to amend the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. Now it looks likely that the GR will be able to collect the 5 sponsors necessary for it to be recognized as a formal resolution, and after two weeks of open debate, a general vote will decide how this comes out. Only developers can vote, but as this will have profound impacts to the entire project, non-developers should also pay close attention. Intense debate is already under way. Whether you are for and against the resolution, let your voice be heard. -- Chuan-kai Lin
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Where can we get more information on this subject? Where is this being debated, if at all? In the Debian developer's mailing list. Feel free to join it and add your $.02 in if you'd like (like most things in Debian, it's open to all). -- Regards, | Does my signature block look out-of-alignment to you? .| If so, try using fixed-width fonts for E-Mail. For Randy| Windows, tell it to use the terminal or another | fixed-width, non-proportional font to display messages.
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Eric Hagglund wrote:
Where can we get more information on this subject?
Where is this being debated, if at all?
debian-{devel,project,vote}
I follow -vote; there has been a formal call for votes (CFV), a question
regarding the wording of the CFV, and a formal objection to the
resolution.
later (unless Debian abolishes non-free),
Bruce
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Randy Edwards wrote: In the Debian developer's mailing list. Feel free to join it and add your $.02 in if you'd like (like most things in Debian, it's open to all). ... although in the past there had been talk of closing it to posts from non-developers. later (unless Debian abolishes non-free), Bruce
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Intense debate is already under way. Whether you are for and against the resolution, let your voice be heard. I find these ideological debates useless and a great waste of resources. It would be much more productive to do some real work like releasing potato, including security fixes for bind, sendmail, kernel 2.2.16, ... Anyway, if this resolution is passed, I will consider switching to another distribution. I have to maintain 11 Debian machines, and even so spend quite some time on proper configuration. Before such a move, I would like some informed suggestions about possible alternatives: Suse, Mandrake, Slackware, ... ? My main priorities are: 1) stability, 2) security, 3) smooth upgrade, 4) easy configuration, 5) not necessarily bleeding edge. In short: Debian +easier configuration -ideology -:) -Igor Mozetic
RE: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Title: RE: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian In short: Debian +easier configuration -ideology -:) -Igor Mozetic Answer: FreeBSD + ports + linux compat libs.
RE: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Moore, Paul wrote: From: Brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] While getting rid of non-free is a noble goal, i don't feel that Debian can do it now without losing support from some parts of the Free Software community (look at the reaction over KDE, and then think of Netscape, LyX, etc etc etc) and without losing a good measure of functionality. i also question the removal of software that is open source but not DFSG free because of restrictions on commercial sale. I agree with this sentiment. Debian is by far my preferred Linux distribution, but the DFSG free or nothing attitude is a little hard-core for me. I don't see any problem with segregating non-DFSG-free stuff from the fully DFSG-free software, but rejecting it altogether from Debian does little to help. Pardon me, but why do you folks think you will no longer have access to Debianized packages of this non-free software? These packages would simply have to be managed outside of the official Debian infrastructure. It does not have to be a commercial operation. I use LyX a lot. I also use a lot of other software packages that are not DFSG-free. However, LyX will eventually be GPL clean when it can link against GTK. Other packages may follow suit because the developers want to be included inside Debian. Also, it is likely that KDE 2.X will be included in main as well. Thanks. Syrus. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Syrus C Nemat-Nasser, PhD| Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials UCSD Department of Physics | UCSD Department of Mechanical [EMAIL PROTECTED] |and Aerospace Engineering
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
Is there a chance that Storm or Corel or both would take over non-free? -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum http://dm.net
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
I've been following this thread on debian-devel for a few days now... I am against the proposal myself, but I don't have any say because I'm not a Debian developer. Andrew George wrote: I don't think this is a good thing. Debian is a great distribution, and I do agree, the project shouldn't be wasting time with bug trackking (except where its the deb that got a problem). But to do this on a philosophical point is only going to cause problems for the user base and make it less attractive to new users. Personally, if things like Netscape are removed from the archieves, then all I'm going to do is install my own tarballs, the negative effect of that (and the fact that it reduces teh effect of the deb database) can't help Debian. The proposal will only remove non-free from the Debian archives. It will not stop it from being distributed -- non-free will just be distributed from somewhere other than the Debian ftp site and its mirrors. The real change is that non-free will no longer be covered by the same bug tracking system as the rest of Debian. This will have the most effect on the packages in the contrib section that depend on packages in non-free. This is the main reason for my objection to the proposal. The non-free section would turn into something similar to the debian KDE site, except to my knowledge there isn't any package on the official debian site that depends on a KDE package. Also, I hope no-one takes this the wrong way, but I always assumed that the developer list would be talking about finally turning potatoe stable, or maybe addressing he fact that it's been over a year between Slink and Potatoe. Indeed. (PS the fact that Woody exists at all while Potatoe is still 'unstable' is another thing I would have thought the developers would be discussing) By all accounts, Potato is quite stable, although officially it is 'frozen' (not 'unstable'). Matthew
Re: Notice: GR to remove non-free support from Debian
On 8 Jun 2000, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: There is a General Resolution proposed by developer John Goerzen that is under discussion on both debian-devel and debian-project, maybe also a few others that I am not aware of. The nature of the GR is to amend the Social Contract so that Debian will stop distributing non-free packages. If the GR is passed, then Debian will no longer provide the storage, bandwidth, and bug tracking facilities for non-free packages, including acroread, blender, netscape, jdk, povray, trn, and xanim. This may be a good time to transition support for the non-free packages to an organization outside Debian. I imagine that a number of companies would jump at the chance to host the bug tracking system for Debian non-free. Think about this: With the distribution of tools such as Borland's Kylix, there may soon be a flood of non-free Linux applications. Many of these may use a shareware or demo-ware distribution strategy to maximize exposure. Also, with Debian and Debian-derived distributions becoming more popular, there should be Debianized versions of most commercial offerings. Given the fact that Mozilla will be available in main, this might be the right time for this step. I use non-free packages such as Acroread. I also use non-free software in non-Debian formats such as Mupad, Maple, and Staroffice. I have no objections whatever the outcome of this proposal. Thanks. Syrus. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Syrus C Nemat-Nasser, PhD| Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials UCSD Department of Physics | UCSD Department of Mechanical [EMAIL PROTECTED] |and Aerospace Engineering
