Re: GR: Removal of non-free
#include * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Dec 24 2003, 08:43:11PM]: > This conflicts with the Social Contract as it currently stands. I am > aware of this and I do not care; we can fix the Social Contract > later. This probably prevents us from *acting* on this resolution > until after the Social Contract has been modified (which I intend to The conflict is quite comparable with the definition of anorexia nervosa. Know that there is no over-weight but feeling the stupid psychological impulses to remove more, and more, and more. The next thing on your list will become non-free, then every free software that is not GPL-compatible in RMS' terms, and what is coming as next, complete extinction for the sake of some free software dream? Why don't you fix actual problems instead of fighting the windmills? MfG, Eduard. -- Je höher die Stände, desto mehr hat der Mann zu tun und desto weniger die Frau. Der König muß doch wenigstens bedenken und unterschreiben. Die Königin lebt von ihm. In untern Ständen ist es wie bei Wilden fast umgekehrt. -- Jean Paul signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 12:39:05PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Dec 24 2003, 08:43:11PM]: > > > This conflicts with the Social Contract as it currently stands. I am > > aware of this and I do not care; we can fix the Social Contract > > later. This probably prevents us from *acting* on this resolution > > until after the Social Contract has been modified (which I intend to > > The conflict is quite comparable with the definition of anorexia > nervosa. Know that there is no over-weight but feeling the stupid > psychological impulses to remove more, and more, and more. The next > thing on your list will become non-free, then every free software that > is not GPL-compatible in RMS' terms, and what is coming as next, > complete extinction for the sake of some free software dream? > > Why don't you fix actual problems instead of fighting the windmills? Please refrain from voting before ballots are sent out. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 01:36:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 05:26:59AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > For the record, I am actively ignoring this "advice". > > What's with the scare quotes? I think you're just stalling. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (2nd draft)
I've incorporated a range of things various people have pointed out to me, plus a few more of my own. Changes from the first draft are at the end. "spurious" here means that I consider the offending item to add nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, and just makes the document longer). I have attempted to locate all such things and remove them. Global changes: - Sanitise the capitalisation on the headings Old text: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. Changes: - Expand "keep [...] entirely free software" - Adjust references to the DFSG to eliminate "below" and "include", to avoid implying it is part of the same document. Note that this is not a statement that it is distinct, merely an elimination of unnecessary implications, so that it reads better if reformatted as two documents. - Remove "As there are many definitions of free software," as spurious - Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software" - Expand "depend on" - Replace "run" with "use" - Replace "our users" with "people" New text: 1. Debian will remain 100% free We promise to preserve the right for everybody to freely use, modify, and distribute the Debian system and all its components. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We will support people who create or use non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. Old text: 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them as free software. We will make the best system we can, so that free software will be widely distributed and used. We will feed back bug-fixes, improvements, user requests, etc. to the "upstream" authors of software included in our system. Changes: - Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software" - Rephrase the third sentence to eliminate 'etc' - Replace "write" with "create" - Replace "components of [Debian]" with "components for [Debian]" New text: 2. We will give back to the free software community When we create new components for the Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream" authors of works included in our system. Old text: 3. We Won't Hide Problems We will keep our entire bug-report database open for public view at all times. Reports that users file on-line will immediately become visible to others. Changes: - Fix hyphenation errors - Relax "immediately" to "promptly", to reflect reality - Expand "won't" - Replace "users" with "people" New text: 3. We will not hide problems We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible to others. Old text: 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use. Changes: - Fix hyphenation errors - Fix pluralisation errors - Expand "won't" and "we'll" - Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software" - Eliminate inaccurate references to "commercial" - Remove "value-added" as spurious - Rephrase the last sentence - Replace "run" with "be used" New text: 4. Our priorities are our users and free software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Read the proposed resolution carefully, and note the tenses in > > > particular. It's carefully written so as not to conflict with the > > > social contract (as currently written); the practical implications are > > > just modified in the presence of clause 5. On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 12:00:02PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > "Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be disabled as > > soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active support of > > the non-free section." > > > > This does sound to me like not supporting the use of non-free software > > and not providing infrastructure for it. I guess I still qualify for > > the thicko-of-the-week prize but I do think that it goes against > > clause 5 of the SC. On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 06:01:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Note that both of those sentences are future tense, and do not set a > time limit. They're at least as legitimate as any resolution that > modifies the social contract (which, by definition, will not strictly > comply with the version in force at the time the GR is passed). This proposal seems to me to be intellectually dishonest, in the sense that it makes worse the underlying conflicts it purports to solve. For example "supporting the use of non-free software" includes future tense. And that's aside from the fact that it's feasible to disable uploads at any time (for example, if the upload server gets hacked) -- the social contract is more about intent than feasiblity. Finally, there's a significant distinction between language which would change the social contract when it receives sufficient votes and language which would violate the social contract when it receives sufficient votes. -- Raul
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I propose the following resolution: > > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > support of the non-free section. After talking it over with a few people, I'm amending my proposed resolution to the following: The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. (Second sentence removed, last one added) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I propose the following resolution: > > > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > > support of the non-free section. > > > > This resolution violates the social contract, so cannot be passed. I > therefore call on the secretary to reject it on procedural grounds. > > HTH, HAND. :) > > > Some constraints have been applied here on when these things will > > happen, but most has been left deliberately vague. The fate of the > > files currently in unstable/non-free is deliberately unspecified. > > How about the people proposing this have a talk to the people affected > by it -- ftpmaster, the release management team, etc -- and try to work And the maintainers of packages in non-free ? I agree that there are many things in non-free that we may be better of with, but there are other stuff in there that is valuable to software in main (documentation comes to mind, but then many documentation packages in main should really be in non-free). Also, packages in non-free is a good candidate for future freeing of it by the upstream authors. I have seen this process happen with the ocaml package, which was long in non-free, and has since been freed, in some small part because of the discussions i, as debian maintainer, had with the upstream team. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:29:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > Hmm... that will significantly degrade the ability to > > > read japanese pdf files. > > > > Since non-free software is not now part of the Debian distribution, it > > will have no effect. > > > > If people that include non-free in their sources list are unable to > > point to another non-free archive, why is it so hard? > > You are effectively saying that people who are using non-free should be > forced to > reconfigure their mirror servers, and their apt sources list. > > That is somewhat uncomfortable; and besides, non-free is there for > convenience until we have a completely free operating system. Yep, and non-free packages can be removed once they have a free replacement. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > After talking it over with a few people, I'm amending my proposed > resolution to the following: > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot. Perhaps, in part, because I will need to install some non-free software (patent restricted) to be able to vote on that ballot. However, I also very much dislike the fact that you would strike the following language from our social contract: We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. and Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages. If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that infrastructure, I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the social contract, but I do not like your "drop it on the floor" approach to this issue. Furthermore, I think it's important to acknowledge that some of our users require the use of non-DFSG software, and to support that use. More fundamentally, the "line" between "free" and "non-free" is extremely complex, topologically. I think a fuzzy approach towards handling stuff on one side of that line vs. the other is much more correct than an inflexible approach. -- Raul
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:59:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 09:39:10AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > > Hmm... that will significantly degrade the ability to > > read japanese pdf files. > > Since non-free software is not now part of the Debian distribution, it > will have no effect. > > If people that include non-free in their sources list are unable to > point to another non-free archive, why is it so hard? The problem is not really the name we give to it, but the rest of the infrastructure. What about the BTS, and what about the status of maintainers maintaining non-free packages ? And finally, what of the quality perception of those non-free packages once they aren o more part of debian. For the information, i have interest in at least 3 parts of non-free : 1) ocaml-doc : the documentation for the (now free, but previously non-free) ocaml package. Notice that many documentation in main should really be in non-free, but that is another discussion. 2) unicorn : this is a driver for my ADSL pci modem, which is in se free, but use a non-free binary only software ADSL library, which even the manufacturer of the card has not access to the source of it. Compare this to many other stuff in main which needs to download non-free codecs and such. 3) lha : an uncompressor i sometimes need, but for which i don't care enough to code or look for a free alternative. That said, there are many packages in non-free i absolutely don't care about, and which for me could be removed, but maybe other persons care about them ? As long as there are serious maintainers working on the packages, why should they be removed ? On what right do you want to impose on me as a volunteer on which packages i want to work and on which i don't ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > After talking it over with a few people, I'm amending my proposed > > resolution to the following: > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free > > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. > While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still vote > it below the default option if it were on a ballot. Perhaps, in part, > because I will need to install some non-free software (patent restricted) > to be able to vote on that ballot. Er, what algorithms used by PGP are still patent-restricted? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpIJbRXPhSyE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 05:37:10PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Er, what algorithms used by PGP are still patent-restricted? IDEA -- http://www.media-crypt.com/engl/Content/patent_info.htm That being said, you shouldn't be using this anyway. The gnupg extension works, but I don't believe it's maintained faithfully. The ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/contrib/README.idea reads as follows: idea.c - The GnuPG IDEA plugin. Due to patent problems we do not keep the idea.c file any longer here on this server. If you are in a country where the distribution is allowed, you might want to get it from its new distribution server; however we suggest to avoid this algorithm entirely due to interoperability problems. For information on the dangers of softwarepatents, please visit the website http://www.noepatents.org The new URLs are: ftp://ftp.gnupg.dk/pub/contrib-dk/idea.c.gz ftp://ftp.gnupg.dk/pub/contrib-dk/idea.c.gz.sig Thanks. Happy signing, -- Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > support of the non-free section. > > this doesn't go anywhere near far enough. i suggest that it be amended to add the following paragraph: Furthermore, any debian developer who disagrees with this shall be branded "Collaborator" across the forehead and expelled from the debian project. We only want rabid zealots and ideologues. craig
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
#include * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Dec 24 2003, 08:43:11PM]: > This conflicts with the Social Contract as it currently stands. I am > aware of this and I do not care; we can fix the Social Contract > later. This probably prevents us from *acting* on this resolution > until after the Social Contract has been modified (which I intend to The conflict is quite comparable with the definition of anorexia nervosa. Know that there is no over-weight but feeling the stupid psychological impulses to remove more, and more, and more. The next thing on your list will become non-free, then every free software that is not GPL-compatible in RMS' terms, and what is coming as next, complete extinction for the sake of some free software dream? Why don't you fix actual problems instead of fighting the windmills? MfG, Eduard. -- Je höher die Stände, desto mehr hat der Mann zu tun und desto weniger die Frau. Der König muß doch wenigstens bedenken und unterschreiben. Die Königin lebt von ihm. In untern Ständen ist es wie bei Wilden fast umgekehrt. -- Jean Paul signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (2nd draft)
I've incorporated a range of things various people have pointed out to me, plus a few more of my own. Changes from the first draft are at the end. "spurious" here means that I consider the offending item to add nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, and just makes the document longer). I have attempted to locate all such things and remove them. Global changes: - Sanitise the capitalisation on the headings Old text: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. Changes: - Expand "keep [...] entirely free software" - Adjust references to the DFSG to eliminate "below" and "include", to avoid implying it is part of the same document. Note that this is not a statement that it is distinct, merely an elimination of unnecessary implications, so that it reads better if reformatted as two documents. - Remove "As there are many definitions of free software," as spurious - Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software" - Expand "depend on" - Replace "run" with "use" - Replace "our users" with "people" New text: 1. Debian will remain 100% free We promise to preserve the right for everybody to freely use, modify, and distribute the Debian system and all its components. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We will support people who create or use non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. Old text: 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them as free software. We will make the best system we can, so that free software will be widely distributed and used. We will feed back bug-fixes, improvements, user requests, etc. to the "upstream" authors of software included in our system. Changes: - Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software" - Rephrase the third sentence to eliminate 'etc' - Replace "write" with "create" - Replace "components of [Debian]" with "components for [Debian]" New text: 2. We will give back to the free software community When we create new components for the Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream" authors of works included in our system. Old text: 3. We Won't Hide Problems We will keep our entire bug-report database open for public view at all times. Reports that users file on-line will immediately become visible to others. Changes: - Fix hyphenation errors - Relax "immediately" to "promptly", to reflect reality - Expand "won't" - Replace "users" with "people" New text: 3. We will not hide problems We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible to others. Old text: 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use. Changes: - Fix hyphenation errors - Fix pluralisation errors - Expand "won't" and "we'll" - Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software" - Eliminate inaccurate references to "commercial" - Remove "value-added" as spurious - Rephrase the last sentence - Replace "run" with "be used" New text: 4. Our priorities are our users and free software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 12:39:05PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Dec 24 2003, 08:43:11PM]: > > > This conflicts with the Social Contract as it currently stands. I am > > aware of this and I do not care; we can fix the Social Contract > > later. This probably prevents us from *acting* on this resolution > > until after the Social Contract has been modified (which I intend to > > The conflict is quite comparable with the definition of anorexia > nervosa. Know that there is no over-weight but feeling the stupid > psychological impulses to remove more, and more, and more. The next > thing on your list will become non-free, then every free software that > is not GPL-compatible in RMS' terms, and what is coming as next, > complete extinction for the sake of some free software dream? > > Why don't you fix actual problems instead of fighting the windmills? Please refrain from voting before ballots are sent out. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 01:36:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 05:26:59AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > For the record, I am actively ignoring this "advice". > > What's with the scare quotes? I think you're just stalling. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Read the proposed resolution carefully, and note the tenses in > > > particular. It's carefully written so as not to conflict with the > > > social contract (as currently written); the practical implications are > > > just modified in the presence of clause 5. On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 12:00:02PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > "Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be disabled as > > soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active support of > > the non-free section." > > > > This does sound to me like not supporting the use of non-free software > > and not providing infrastructure for it. I guess I still qualify for > > the thicko-of-the-week prize but I do think that it goes against > > clause 5 of the SC. On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 06:01:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Note that both of those sentences are future tense, and do not set a > time limit. They're at least as legitimate as any resolution that > modifies the social contract (which, by definition, will not strictly > comply with the version in force at the time the GR is passed). This proposal seems to me to be intellectually dishonest, in the sense that it makes worse the underlying conflicts it purports to solve. For example "supporting the use of non-free software" includes future tense. And that's aside from the fact that it's feasible to disable uploads at any time (for example, if the upload server gets hacked) -- the social contract is more about intent than feasiblity. Finally, there's a significant distinction between language which would change the social contract when it receives sufficient votes and language which would violate the social contract when it receives sufficient votes. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I propose the following resolution: > > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > support of the non-free section. After talking it over with a few people, I'm amending my proposed resolution to the following: The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. (Second sentence removed, last one added) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > After talking it over with a few people, I'm amending my proposed > resolution to the following: > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot. Perhaps, in part, because I will need to install some non-free software (patent restricted) to be able to vote on that ballot. However, I also very much dislike the fact that you would strike the following language from our social contract: We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. and Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages. If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that infrastructure, I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the social contract, but I do not like your "drop it on the floor" approach to this issue. Furthermore, I think it's important to acknowledge that some of our users require the use of non-DFSG software, and to support that use. More fundamentally, the "line" between "free" and "non-free" is extremely complex, topologically. I think a fuzzy approach towards handling stuff on one side of that line vs. the other is much more correct than an inflexible approach. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I propose the following resolution: > > > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > > support of the non-free section. > > > > This resolution violates the social contract, so cannot be passed. I > therefore call on the secretary to reject it on procedural grounds. > > HTH, HAND. :) > > > Some constraints have been applied here on when these things will > > happen, but most has been left deliberately vague. The fate of the > > files currently in unstable/non-free is deliberately unspecified. > > How about the people proposing this have a talk to the people affected > by it -- ftpmaster, the release management team, etc -- and try to work And the maintainers of packages in non-free ? I agree that there are many things in non-free that we may be better of with, but there are other stuff in there that is valuable to software in main (documentation comes to mind, but then many documentation packages in main should really be in non-free). Also, packages in non-free is a good candidate for future freeing of it by the upstream authors. I have seen this process happen with the ocaml package, which was long in non-free, and has since been freed, in some small part because of the discussions i, as debian maintainer, had with the upstream team. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:59:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 09:39:10AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > > Hmm... that will significantly degrade the ability to > > read japanese pdf files. > > Since non-free software is not now part of the Debian distribution, it > will have no effect. > > If people that include non-free in their sources list are unable to > point to another non-free archive, why is it so hard? The problem is not really the name we give to it, but the rest of the infrastructure. What about the BTS, and what about the status of maintainers maintaining non-free packages ? And finally, what of the quality perception of those non-free packages once they aren o more part of debian. For the information, i have interest in at least 3 parts of non-free : 1) ocaml-doc : the documentation for the (now free, but previously non-free) ocaml package. Notice that many documentation in main should really be in non-free, but that is another discussion. 2) unicorn : this is a driver for my ADSL pci modem, which is in se free, but use a non-free binary only software ADSL library, which even the manufacturer of the card has not access to the source of it. Compare this to many other stuff in main which needs to download non-free codecs and such. 3) lha : an uncompressor i sometimes need, but for which i don't care enough to code or look for a free alternative. That said, there are many packages in non-free i absolutely don't care about, and which for me could be removed, but maybe other persons care about them ? As long as there are serious maintainers working on the packages, why should they be removed ? On what right do you want to impose on me as a volunteer on which packages i want to work and on which i don't ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:29:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > Hmm... that will significantly degrade the ability to > > > read japanese pdf files. > > > > Since non-free software is not now part of the Debian distribution, it > > will have no effect. > > > > If people that include non-free in their sources list are unable to > > point to another non-free archive, why is it so hard? > > You are effectively saying that people who are using non-free should be forced to > reconfigure their mirror servers, and their apt sources list. > > That is somewhat uncomfortable; and besides, non-free is there for > convenience until we have a completely free operating system. Yep, and non-free packages can be removed once they have a free replacement. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > After talking it over with a few people, I'm amending my proposed > > resolution to the following: > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free > > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. > While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still vote > it below the default option if it were on a ballot. Perhaps, in part, > because I will need to install some non-free software (patent restricted) > to be able to vote on that ballot. Er, what algorithms used by PGP are still patent-restricted? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 05:37:10PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Er, what algorithms used by PGP are still patent-restricted? IDEA -- http://www.media-crypt.com/engl/Content/patent_info.htm That being said, you shouldn't be using this anyway. The gnupg extension works, but I don't believe it's maintained faithfully. The ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/contrib/README.idea reads as follows: idea.c - The GnuPG IDEA plugin. Due to patent problems we do not keep the idea.c file any longer here on this server. If you are in a country where the distribution is allowed, you might want to get it from its new distribution server; however we suggest to avoid this algorithm entirely due to interoperability problems. For information on the dangers of softwarepatents, please visit the website http://www.noepatents.org The new URLs are: ftp://ftp.gnupg.dk/pub/contrib-dk/idea.c.gz ftp://ftp.gnupg.dk/pub/contrib-dk/idea.c.gz.sig Thanks. Happy signing, -- Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > support of the non-free section. > > this doesn't go anywhere near far enough. i suggest that it be amended to add the following paragraph: Furthermore, any debian developer who disagrees with this shall be branded "Collaborator" across the forehead and expelled from the debian project. We only want rabid zealots and ideologues. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
Clause 5 also allows us to distribute contrib as well as non-free. Without
it, clause 1 ("we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free
software") would seem to require us to remove contrib as well as non-free.
Is contrib also to be removed?
If not, how are dependencies from contrib on non-free software to be
treated? Should the dependencies of contrib packages just be ignored
-- so that, eg, foo-contrib.deb in stable or testing might depend on a
version of libc6 only available in unstable or experimental? Or should
contrib packages not depend explicitly on non-free packages at all? Or
should something else happen?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 02:27:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 01:36:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 05:26:59AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > For the record, I am actively ignoring this "advice".
> > What's with the scare quotes?
> I think you're just stalling.
I really love trying to work with people who aren't even willing to
offer the benefit of any doubt in assuming the worst of me. You know,
it's polite to at least *pretend* that we're all working together.
FWIW, I think the fastest way to get rid of non-free is to work out
all the problems then present a single, coherent, justified plan of
how to deal with it all. You don't have to do that alone or anything,
but putting up half-arsed ideas like the two we've had so far ("let's
remove non-free without removing non-free!" and "let's *allow ourselves*
to remove non-free, even if we don't actually want to!") isn't going to
get anywhere IMO.
And personally, I'd rather get this nonsense over and done with rather
than remaining uncertain and half-hearted about keeping non-free for
another three or four years.
Anyway, how do you know I'm not trying to stall you by suggesting the
best possible course of action in the knowledge that you'll treat it as
an evil Cabal plot and so go to every possible length to avoid it?
Yeesh.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
