Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Anthony Towns  writes:
> > Sure they do:
> > 
> > 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> >The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> >technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> >this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
> >determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
> >justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
> >implemented.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:17:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> My reading of that has been that this is limited to actual technical
> matters (such as those in 6.1-2 of the Constitution).  But on
> re-reading the text, while I would still say this, I agree that my
> reading is by no means the only one of the text.
> 
> So, Technical Committee, what say you?  Would you entertain such
> requests?

Caveats: I'm not the technical committee, and this isn't the mailing
 list for the technical committee.  [The technical committee reaches
 its decisions by voting, but debian-vote is for GRs, not committee
 decisions].  Also, the consitutional interpretation which the committee
 decides on could be overruled by the Project Secretary [who might be
 heavily influenced by the opinion of the author of the constitution].

With those cautions in mind:  Of course we would.

We've dealt with analogous issues in the past.  Ben Collins got the
committee involved in his "crypto in main" document, when he was leader,
for instance.

There's a flip side of course (would the committee agree with you on
what you propose?  which mostly relates back to: did you consider all
the important issues?), but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking.

As a final note: if you want to release some free package in main, which
depends on some package which has a DFSG license but is in non-free
rather than main, I can't think of any reason we wouldn't support you
in getting that other package into main.

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sure they do:
> > 
> > 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> >The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> >technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> >this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
> >determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
> >justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
> >implemented.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:17:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> My reading of that has been that this is limited to actual technical
> matters (such as those in 6.1-2 of the Constitution).  But on
> re-reading the text, while I would still say this, I agree that my
> reading is by no means the only one of the text.
> 
> So, Technical Committee, what say you?  Would you entertain such
> requests?

Caveats: I'm not the technical committee, and this isn't the mailing
 list for the technical committee.  [The technical committee reaches
 its decisions by voting, but debian-vote is for GRs, not committee
 decisions].  Also, the consitutional interpretation which the committee
 decides on could be overruled by the Project Secretary [who might be
 heavily influenced by the opinion of the author of the constitution].

With those cautions in mind:  Of course we would.

We've dealt with analogous issues in the past.  Ben Collins got the
committee involved in his "crypto in main" document, when he was leader,
for instance.

There's a flip side of course (would the committee agree with you on
what you propose?  which mostly relates back to: did you consider all
the important issues?), but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking.

As a final note: if you want to release some free package in main, which
depends on some package which has a DFSG license but is in non-free
rather than main, I can't think of any reason we wouldn't support you
in getting that other package into main.

-- 
Raul


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> Sure they do:
> 
> 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
>The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
>technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
>this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
>determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
>justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
>implemented.

My reading of that has been that this is limited to actual technical
matters (such as those in 6.1-2 of the Constitution).  But on
re-reading the text, while I would still say this, I agree that my
reading is by no means the only one of the text.

So, Technical Committee, what say you?  Would you entertain such
requests?

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sure they do:
> 
> 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
>The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
>technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
>this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
>determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
>justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
>implemented.

My reading of that has been that this is limited to actual technical
matters (such as those in 6.1-2 of the Constitution).  But on
re-reading the text, while I would still say this, I agree that my
reading is by no means the only one of the text.

So, Technical Committee, what say you?  Would you entertain such
requests?


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close 
or 
>>ignore >>the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against 
non-free with >>apparent replacements in main.

And, how should i know ?
Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you 
personally.
The wrong list though, as i understand, this should be better suited 
to

-project.


I don't understand you. You claim that the question is not worth 
asking and when I point out why it is, you speak bureaucracy.


Personally, I think questioning a suggested way to bypass a current GR 
vote are probably on-topic for -vote. Don't start claiming otherwise 
just because you want it on a list that you don't read.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
> >>ignore 
> >>the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with 
> >>apparent replacements in main.
> >And, how should i know ?
> 
> Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you 
> personally.

The wrong list though, as i understand, this should be better suited to
-project.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.
> Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right to
> overrule the developer about such a thing.  That's the problem I'm
> pointing out.  

Sure they do:

4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
   The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
   technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
   this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
   determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
   justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
   implemented.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close 
or 
>>ignore >>the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against 
non-free with >>apparent replacements in main.
And, how should i know ?
Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you 
personally.
The wrong list though, as i understand, this should be better suited 
to
-project.
I don't understand you. You claim that the question is not worth 
asking and when I point out why it is, you speak bureaucracy.

Personally, I think questioning a suggested way to bypass a current GR 
vote are probably on-topic for -vote. Don't start claiming otherwise 
just because you want it on a list that you don't read.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
> >>ignore 
> >>the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with 
> >>apparent replacements in main.
> >And, how should i know ?
> 
> Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you 
> personally.

The wrong list though, as i understand, this should be better suited to
-project.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.
> 
> Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right to
> overrule the developer about such a thing.  That's the problem I'm
> pointing out.  

Oh, are you sure ? 

Well, then the experimentation with one package may serve as a basis for
a change in practice. Go ahead, and show how it does or doesn't work,
and point out the problems.

Acting will bring you more than long complaints though.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.
> Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right to
> overrule the developer about such a thing.  That's the problem I'm
> pointing out.  

Sure they do:

4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
   The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
   technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
   this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
   determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
   justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
   implemented.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.

Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right to
overrule the developer about such a thing.  That's the problem I'm
pointing out.  

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> > should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> > refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
> 
> I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
> maintainer to even file a bug report for such a situation.

Well, you fill a bug report against the package, not against ftp-master,
and discuss the issue with him.

Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.

Now, if he points out lacunes in free alternatives, then helping fix
those lacunes may be a good way to convince him.

> Officially, there is nothing at all wrong with such a situation.
> 
> I would like to make *something* wrong with it.

Well, you are interested in bureaucratically makeing things changes. I
doubt that will work. Try doing it with the above method, and log all
information on it. See it as a study case to help delineate the problems
and procedures involved in it.

But if you refuse to do it so, and insist on a solution from above,
sorry, but i doubt this will bring you very far, and i seriously doubt
that you understood why many were dead against the drop non-free issue.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.
> 
> Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right to
> overrule the developer about such a thing.  That's the problem I'm
> pointing out.  

Oh, are you sure ? 

Well, then the experimentation with one package may serve as a basis for
a change in practice. Go ahead, and show how it does or doesn't work,
and point out the problems.

Acting will bring you more than long complaints though.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
ignore 
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with 
apparent replacements in main.

And, how should i know ?


Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you 
personally.

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.

Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right to
overrule the developer about such a thing.  That's the problem I'm
pointing out.  

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> > should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> > refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
> 
> I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
> maintainer to even file a bug report for such a situation.

Well, you fill a bug report against the package, not against ftp-master,
and discuss the issue with him.

Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.

Now, if he points out lacunes in free alternatives, then helping fix
those lacunes may be a good way to convince him.

> Officially, there is nothing at all wrong with such a situation.
> 
> I would like to make *something* wrong with it.

Well, you are interested in bureaucratically makeing things changes. I
doubt that will work. Try doing it with the above method, and log all
information on it. See it as a study case to help delineate the problems
and procedures involved in it.

But if you refuse to do it so, and insist on a solution from above,
sorry, but i doubt this will bring you very far, and i seriously doubt
that you understood why many were dead against the drop non-free issue.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
ignore 
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with 
apparent replacements in main.
And, how should i know ?
Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you 
personally.

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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.

I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintainer to even file a bug report for such a situation.
Officially, there is nothing at all wrong with such a situation.

I would like to make *something* wrong with it.

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.

I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintainer to even file a bug report for such a situation.
Officially, there is nothing at all wrong with such a situation.

I would like to make *something* wrong with it.


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 
> >>Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> >>"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
> >>any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in 
> >>non-free.
> >I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> >should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> >refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
> 
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free 
> with apparent replacements in main.

And, how should i know ?

> >Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.
> 
> Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters 
> say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's 
> better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend 
> their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If 
> that's OK, then filing "replaceable by" bugs against non-free seems 
> not to achieve anything.

Yeah, well, i think this vote and discussion has changed the minds on
this issue, but my idea was to have an prolonged evaluation of each
package in non-free, and a redo this evaluation regularly.

This evaluation would include the reason for it not yet havingfull
replacements, and suggestions on how to change it.

Friendly,

Svne Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 
> >>Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> >>"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
> >>any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in 
> >>non-free.
> >I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> >should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> >refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
> 
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free 
> with apparent replacements in main.

And, how should i know ?

> >Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.
> 
> Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters 
> say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's 
> better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend 
> their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If 
> that's OK, then filing "replaceable by" bugs against non-free seems 
> not to achieve anything.

Yeah, well, i think this vote and discussion has changed the minds on
this issue, but my idea was to have an prolonged evaluation of each
package in non-free, and a redo this evaluation regularly.

This evaluation would include the reason for it not yet havingfull
replacements, and suggestions on how to change it.

Friendly,

Svne Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some 
> >particular
> >person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
> One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to 
> resort to a GR to cull pointless or self-defeating things. 

Only if you're not willing to accept that sometimes it takes time to
persuade everyone that some particular thing is true.

> It immediately allows people to start crying "don't you oppress me!"

So stop trying to oppress them.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns  
wrote:



Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.


Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing out 
that the package is replaced by something in main, so the question is 
still interesting practically and not mere bureaucratic navel-gazing.


One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some 
particular

person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.


One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to 
resort to a GR to cull pointless or self-defeating things. It 
immediately allows people to start crying "don't you oppress me!"


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some 
> >particular
> >person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
> One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to 
> resort to a GR to cull pointless or self-defeating things. 

Only if you're not willing to accept that sometimes it takes time to
persuade everyone that some particular thing is true.

> It immediately allows people to start crying "don't you oppress me!"

So stop trying to oppress them.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free 
> with apparent replacements in main.

Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.

> Certain other non-free maintainers defend 
> their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options.

One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some particular
person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing out 
that the package is replaced by something in main, so the question is 
still interesting practically and not mere bureaucratic navel-gazing.

One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some 
particular
person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to 
resort to a GR to cull pointless or self-defeating things. It 
immediately allows people to start crying "don't you oppress me!"

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free 
> with apparent replacements in main.

Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.

> Certain other non-free maintainers defend 
> their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options.

One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some particular
person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 

Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in 
non-free.

I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.


It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free 
with apparent replacements in main.



Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.


Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters 
say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's 
better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend 
their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If 
that's OK, then filing "replaceable by" bugs against non-free seems 
not to achieve anything.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 
> 
> Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
> any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free.

I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.

That's the problem with the drop non-free proponent. You are to
accroched (?) to bureaucrasy to force the issue, instead of simply going
ahead and solving the issue little by little.

Sure, it is a bug, if the packages is no more useful, and has truly been
replaced by mpg321 for all usage, then mpg123 should be removed.

Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.

> On the other hand, if you want to create such a policy, I'm all for
> it.  Indeed, that's *exactly* what I've been suggesting as one
> possible approach to take, should the pending GR fail.

Did i not almost propose a GR that said something such ? I am not
entirely sure that this is the correct way of doing this, but i doubt we
need a GR on this issue.

Fill a wish list bug about this issue, and let's use this case as
example on what procedures are needed, and which are not.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 
Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in 
non-free.
I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or 
ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free 
with apparent replacements in main.

Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.
Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters 
say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's 
better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend 
their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If 
that's OK, then filing "replaceable by" bugs against non-free seems 
not to achieve anything.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 
> 
> Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
> any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free.

I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.

That's the problem with the drop non-free proponent. You are to
accroched (?) to bureaucrasy to force the issue, instead of simply going
ahead and solving the issue little by little.

Sure, it is a bug, if the packages is no more useful, and has truly been
replaced by mpg321 for all usage, then mpg123 should be removed.

Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.

> On the other hand, if you want to create such a policy, I'm all for
> it.  Indeed, that's *exactly* what I've been suggesting as one
> possible approach to take, should the pending GR fail.

Did i not almost propose a GR that said something such ? I am not
entirely sure that this is the correct way of doing this, but i doubt we
need a GR on this issue.

Fill a wish list bug about this issue, and let's use this case as
example on what procedures are needed, and which are not.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:

>> non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
>> it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
>> that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty in matching.

> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/


What's the point? That not all non debian users think our
 quality is good? That if we poll ex debian users we'll get the
 viewpoint that there is something better than debian?

The people who use Debian are those whose opinion counts.

manoj
-- 
If the average man is made in God's image, then such a man as
Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:

>> non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
>> it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
>> that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty in matching.

> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/


What's the point? That not all non debian users think our
 quality is good? That if we poll ex debian users we'll get the
 viewpoint that there is something better than debian?

The people who use Debian are those whose opinion counts.

manoj
-- 
If the average man is made in God's image, then such a man as
Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
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]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only 
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user 
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/

And which distribution does that user use now? Gentoo?

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only 
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user 
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/

And which distribution does that user use now? Gentoo?

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical  organizations have difficulty
in matching.


Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only 
DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user 
thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical  organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only 
DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user 
thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/

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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 10 Mar 2004 11:25:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Necessary for what purpose?

> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity.  I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> for closed drivers, non-free documentation for free software, for
> example.

My standard of necessity is simple: if I feel it is necesary
 for me, then I say it is necessary.  How do I decide? Since these are
 subjective issues, there is an element of gut feeling involved. For
 example, even though there are alternate editors/mua's/irc
 clients/news readers out there, emacs is important for me.

I do not think that if, after years of emacs/vi wars, I have
 not let others determine for me what I require, nor have I seen fit
 to debate what my criteria of necessity  is, that I am likely to do
 so now.

Why is it relevant? Oh, to determine when the non free section
 contains important software? My take is this: if someone has taken
 the time and effort to package software despite it being non-free,
 and is standing up to take responsibility, and maintain it, and this
 person is a fellow Debian develope, who has a commitment to Debian
 and free software, then heck, the chances are that the software is
 needed. 

I trust my fellow developers; I don't think they would
 frivolously package _non-free_ software for the heck of it.

>> > I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What
>> > I disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.
>>
>> I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we
>> provide them.

> First, some people have been reading the social contract as if it
> were a promise to provide non-free packages to users.


We did make a promise (umm, a contract, even) to make non-free
 packages available, even though not a part of Debian, for the sake of
 their users, the implied promise is that the care that developers pay
 to packages, and the resultant quality, shall be provided to those
 packages as well. Indeed, the added value of the debian membership
 and infrastructure was implied in that promise.

So I do believe.

>> Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't
>> prevent distribution, but which requires significant time to sort
>> out, the package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.

> How exactly does the presence of non-free, as opposed to
> non-free.org, help this?

non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
 quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
 for quality that purely hypothetical  organizations have difficulty
 in matching. 

manoj
-- 
I/O, I/O, It's off to disk I go, A bit or byte to read or write, I/O,
I/O, I/O...
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 

Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free.

What is the bug?

On the other hand, if you want to create such a policy, I'm all for
it.  Indeed, that's *exactly* what I've been suggesting as one
possible approach to take, should the pending GR fail.

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 10 Mar 2004 11:25:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Necessary for what purpose?

> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity.  I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> for closed drivers, non-free documentation for free software, for
> example.

My standard of necessity is simple: if I feel it is necesary
 for me, then I say it is necessary.  How do I decide? Since these are
 subjective issues, there is an element of gut feeling involved. For
 example, even though there are alternate editors/mua's/irc
 clients/news readers out there, emacs is important for me.

I do not think that if, after years of emacs/vi wars, I have
 not let others determine for me what I require, nor have I seen fit
 to debate what my criteria of necessity  is, that I am likely to do
 so now.

Why is it relevant? Oh, to determine when the non free section
 contains important software? My take is this: if someone has taken
 the time and effort to package software despite it being non-free,
 and is standing up to take responsibility, and maintain it, and this
 person is a fellow Debian develope, who has a commitment to Debian
 and free software, then heck, the chances are that the software is
 needed. 

I trust my fellow developers; I don't think they would
 frivolously package _non-free_ software for the heck of it.

>> > I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What
>> > I disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.
>>
>> I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we
>> provide them.

> First, some people have been reading the social contract as if it
> were a promise to provide non-free packages to users.


We did make a promise (umm, a contract, even) to make non-free
 packages available, even though not a part of Debian, for the sake of
 their users, the implied promise is that the care that developers pay
 to packages, and the resultant quality, shall be provided to those
 packages as well. Indeed, the added value of the debian membership
 and infrastructure was implied in that promise.

So I do believe.

>> Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't
>> prevent distribution, but which requires significant time to sort
>> out, the package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.

> How exactly does the presence of non-free, as opposed to
> non-free.org, help this?

non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
 quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
 for quality that purely hypothetical  organizations have difficulty
 in matching. 

manoj
-- 
I/O, I/O, It's off to disk I go, A bit or byte to read or write, I/O,
I/O, I/O...
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
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]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 

Is it a bug?  Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.  We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free.

What is the bug?

On the other hand, if you want to create such a policy, I'm all for
it.  Indeed, that's *exactly* what I've been suggesting as one
possible approach to take, should the pending GR fail.

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Robert Woodcock]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore?  Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary?  And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?

It's necessary for Asterisk music-on-hold, because mpg321 can't resample its
output. There are some patches floating around for Asterisk to use sox to
resample instead, but I don't think upstream has accepted them.

It looks like this is bug #118283.
-- 
Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
perl -e '$a-=($_%4-2)*4/$_++while++$_<2e6;print"$a\n"'

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Robert Woodcock]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore?  Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary?  And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?

It's necessary for Asterisk music-on-hold, because mpg321 can't resample its
output. There are some patches floating around for Asterisk to use sox to
resample instead, but I don't think upstream has accepted them.

It looks like this is bug #118283.
-- 
Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
perl -e '$a-=($_%4-2)*4/$_++while++$_<2e6;print"$a\n"'


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:29:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > > > as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
> > > But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
> > > those words.  
> > 
> > Yes, and then it clarifies precisely what it means when it says "Debian"
> > -- "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". Right there. In those words.
> 
> Actually no, paragraph five doesn't say that.  

But paragraph 1 does it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> > anyone needs.
> 
> Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
> vrms would say on their own system.  
> 
> Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I don't need
> mpg123, because mpg321 is free and a drop-in replacement.
> 
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore?  Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary?  And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?
> 
> See, this is what I'm thinking when I'm told that things are just fine
> now.  

Well, let's investigate and remove it if needed.

Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > > as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
> > But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
> > those words.  
> 
> Yes, and then it clarifies precisely what it means when it says "Debian"
> -- "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". Right there. In those words.

Actually no, paragraph five doesn't say that.  

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:29:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > > > as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
> > > But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
> > > those words.  
> > 
> > Yes, and then it clarifies precisely what it means when it says "Debian"
> > -- "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". Right there. In those words.
> 
> Actually no, paragraph five doesn't say that.  

But paragraph 1 does it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> > anyone needs.
> 
> Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
> vrms would say on their own system.  
> 
> Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I don't need
> mpg123, because mpg321 is free and a drop-in replacement.
> 
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore?  Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary?  And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?
> 
> See, this is what I'm thinking when I'm told that things are just fine
> now.  

Well, let's investigate and remove it if needed.

Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
> But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
> those words.  

Yes, and then it clarifies precisely what it means when it says "Debian"
-- "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". Right there. In those words.

If you were to do likewise every time you make the claim that non-free
isn't part of Debian, I wouldn't be objecting to your calls for clarity
on others' behalfs. As it is, you're just contributing to the confusion,
and a hypocrite to boot.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> > The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> > everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".
> 
> See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".

But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
those words.  "Non-free software isn't a part of Debian."  Now, if you
want to repeal the relevant paragraph of the SC, I understand there is
a GR pending which you could vote for.

Indeed, this is just what the SC says: non-free isn't a part of
Debian, but we do provide infrastructure for it.  This says to me,
that it isn't part of the Debian Project; it's just some other thing
that we make allowance for.  Works for me, but if you don't like this
language, you have to change it by GR, and not insist that it really
doesn't matter.

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > > as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
> > But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
> > those words.  
> 
> Yes, and then it clarifies precisely what it means when it says "Debian"
> -- "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". Right there. In those words.

Actually no, paragraph five doesn't say that.  

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
> But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
> those words.  

Yes, and then it clarifies precisely what it means when it says "Debian"
-- "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". Right there. In those words.

If you were to do likewise every time you make the claim that non-free
isn't part of Debian, I wouldn't be objecting to your calls for clarity
on others' behalfs. As it is, you're just contributing to the confusion,
and a hypocrite to boot.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> > The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> > everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".
> 
> See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".

But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian.  Right there, in
those words.  "Non-free software isn't a part of Debian."  Now, if you
want to repeal the relevant paragraph of the SC, I understand there is
a GR pending which you could vote for.

Indeed, this is just what the SC says: non-free isn't a part of
Debian, but we do provide infrastructure for it.  This says to me,
that it isn't part of the Debian Project; it's just some other thing
that we make allowance for.  Works for me, but if you don't like this
language, you have to change it by GR, and not insist that it really
doesn't matter.

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> anyone needs.

Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.  

Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I don't need
mpg123, because mpg321 is free and a drop-in replacement.

So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore?  Is anyone willing to
say it's necessary?  And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?

See, this is what I'm thinking when I'm told that things are just fine
now.  

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
> removal of non-free from the Debian archive.  So who is it that fits
> your description?

I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
anyone needs.

I'm presuming that they don't actually know answers to that question,
and are genuinely looking for information.

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> anyone needs.

Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.  

Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I don't need
mpg123, because mpg321 is free and a drop-in replacement.

So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore?  Is anyone willing to
say it's necessary?  And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?

See, this is what I'm thinking when I'm told that things are just fine
now.  

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
> removal of non-free from the Debian archive.  So who is it that fits
> your description?

I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
anyone needs.

I'm presuming that they don't actually know answers to that question,
and are genuinely looking for information.

-- 
Raul


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
> distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
> debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
> infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting that we are confusing all of
> them.

I'm not giving "compromise" two different meanings.  There are simply
two kinds of compromises that could be struck.  The old one, which has
broken down in my opinion, and perhaps a new one.

On the other hand, when saying that Debian has no non-free packages,
I'm simply repeating what I understand from the current text of the
SC, where it says that such packages are "not a part of Debian".

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Kevin Rosenberg]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
> ("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.

After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.

> It may not be good for them in the short term; I believe that it is
> good for them in the long term.

I'm happy to be voting for productivity in the short-term. 

-- 
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
> 
> I have spoken of both.  The context has made it clear in each case,
> but you have to pay attention to the context.

Hear, hear,

And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting that we are confusing all of
them.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
> personal need for any of it, and

Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.

I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
removal of non-free from the Debian archive.  So who is it that fits
your description?

> [b] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not state how
> dumping non-free is good for people who do have a need for some of it.

It may not be good for them in the short term; I believe that it is
good for them in the long term.

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
> distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
> debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
> infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting that we are confusing all of
> them.

I'm not giving "compromise" two different meanings.  There are simply
two kinds of compromises that could be struck.  The old one, which has
broken down in my opinion, and perhaps a new one.

On the other hand, when saying that Debian has no non-free packages,
I'm simply repeating what I understand from the current text of the
SC, where it says that such packages are "not a part of Debian".

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Kevin Rosenberg]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
> ("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.

After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.

> It may not be good for them in the short term; I believe that it is
> good for them in the long term.

I'm happy to be voting for productivity in the short-term. 

-- 
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have spoken of both.  The context has made it clear in each case,
> but you have to pay attention to the context.

If I understand what you just said, you claim that you've used the phrase
"the compromise" to refer to to different concepts, and that you expect
readers to understand what specific compromise you're referring to
from context?

If that's the case, I must point out that I've only seen one definition
from you of what specific compromise you meant when you used the phrase
"the compromise", and I only saw that today.

(segmentation fault)

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
> 
> I have spoken of both.  The context has made it clear in each case,
> but you have to pay attention to the context.

Hear, hear,

And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting that we are confusing all of
them.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.

I have spoken of both.  The context has made it clear in each case,
but you have to pay attention to the context.

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of explicit promise which people were required to
make to that effect.

Instead, the only thing you can point at is a SUBTITLE and -- if you
want to get fancy -- the absence of some specific phrases from a rather
brief document.

In other words, you're taking an ambiguity and blowing it out of
proportion.

In my opinion, what that document is promising is a lack of dependencies
on non-free, not a requirement that people talk a certain way.

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> 
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

Ok.

Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.

And, no, non-free is not part of the debian distribution, but it is
offered by the debian project on debian infrastructure.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.

The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Necessary for what purpose?

You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free.  It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is.  I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that we could work from there towards a common
understanding.

We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity.  I
already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
for closed drivers, non-free documentation for free software, for
example. 

> Lots of people seem to be taking the view that if they personally don't
> need anything in non-free, that means that something's broken.

I haven't heard anyone take that view.

> > I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
> > disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.
> 
> I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we provide them.

First, some people have been reading the social contract as if it were
a promise to provide non-free packages to users.

> But that's not the same as agreeing that we should forbid them from
> being provided.

We can't forbid them.  How could we?  What we can do is not make it
Debian's job to provide them.

> Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't prevent
> distribution, but which requires significant time to sort out, the
> package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.

How exactly does the presence of non-free, as opposed to non-free.org,
help this?  

> In my experience, either [a] upstream genuinely wants the software to
> be free, or [b] upstream could care less.  Who is it that cares about
> Debian and is satisfied with non-free?

We hear of upstream maintainers sometimes say they want their stuff to
be in Debian, and say that it's important, but resist making it free.
An excellent example is the FSF, but there have been others.

Moreover, why is it Debian's job to provide them advertising?  

> > But this may not really respond to your question; I could only guess
> > at just what you were looking for, so if it is not as responsive as
> > you'd like, then please amplify the question a little or explain in
> > more detail what the flexibility is that you have, and what about that
> > flexibility helps our goals.
> 
> Well, for example, I want to be able to distribute documentation which
> has "no modify" clauses.

Sure, but the question here is: can you explain why non-free.org is so
much worse than non-free?  Note that BTS is far less relevant to a
documentation package...

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Necessary for what purpose?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:25:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
> non-free.  It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
> necessary it is.  I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
> word means for you, and that we could work from there towards a common
> understanding.

A variety of purposes, yes.  Satisfying a variety of needs for a variety
of people, yes.  Whether or not this qualifies as "lots" is a different
issue.

> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity.  I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> for closed drivers, non-free documentation for free software, for
> example. 

I agree that those are in the set.

> > Lots of people seem to be taking the view that if they personally don't
> > need anything in non-free, that means that something's broken.
> 
> I haven't heard anyone take that view.

I said that wrong.  However:

[a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
personal need for any of it, and

[b] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not state how
dumping non-free is good for people who do have a need for some of it.

The closest to [b] I've seen is a statement of the idea that people <>.
[As opposed to giving up and going with some other distribution.]  But no
one has presented any concrete facts to suggest that "people will write
more software is a likely response" and "people will abandon debian"
is an unlikely response.

Personally, I think that until Debian is a lot more "developer friendly",
"abandon debian" is the more likely response.  [When -- perhaps --
independent sites, like maybe slashdot, freshmeat or lwn are saying how
great Debian is for hacking/developing new software.]

> > > I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
> > > disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.
> > 
> > I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we provide them.
> 
> First, some people have been reading the social contract as if it were
> a promise to provide non-free packages to users.

I think you're overstating that case.  I think you're confusing the
distinction between practical promises (which might include non-free
as an element) and specific promises about non-free (regardless of the
ultimate value to the user).

> > But that's not the same as agreeing that we should forbid them from
> > being provided.
> 
> We can't forbid them.  How could we?  What we can do is not make it
> Debian's job to provide them.

I meant there to be an implicit "with Debian" at the tail end of that
sentence.  We can forbid them from being provided from our archives.

> > Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't prevent
> > distribution, but which requires significant time to sort out, the
> > package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.
> 
> How exactly does the presence of non-free, as opposed to non-free.org,
> help this?  

That depends on whether non-free.org is a part of Debian or not.  If it's
not, then there's a whole bunch of coordination issues that need to
be addressed.

Or are you saying we should explicitly point our users at some non-debian
outfit, if they want their system to work in a comprehensible fashion?

> > In my experience, either [a] upstream genuinely wants the software to
> > be free, or [b] upstream could care less.  Who is it that cares about
> > Debian and is satisfied with non-free?
> 
> We hear of upstream maintainers sometimes say they want their stuff to
> be in Debian, and say that it's important, but resist making it free.
> An excellent example is the FSF, but there have been others.
>
> Moreover, why is it Debian's job to provide them advertising?  

That's easy: it's not Debian's job to provide them advertising.

> > > But this may not really respond to your question; I could only guess
> > > at just what you were looking for, so if it is not as responsive as
> > > you'd like, then please amplify the question a little or explain in
> > > more detail what the flexibility is that you have, and what about that
> > > flexibility helps our goals.
> > 
> > Well, for example, I want to be able to distribute documentation which
> > has "no modify" clauses.
> 
> Sure, but the question here is: can you explain why non-free.org is so
> much worse than non-free?  Note that BTS is far less relevant to a
> documentation package...

Well, for example:

  What happens when the copyright changes and we can distribute it?

  What happens when non-free.org messes up the package?

  How do we NMU non-free.org?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
> personal need for any of it, and

Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.

I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
removal of non-free from the Debian archive.  So who is it that fits
your description?

> [b] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not state how
> dumping non-free is good for people who do have a need for some of it.

It may not be good for them in the short term; I believe that it is
good for them in the long term.

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have spoken of both.  The context has made it clear in each case,
> but you have to pay attention to the context.

If I understand what you just said, you claim that you've used the phrase
"the compromise" to refer to to different concepts, and that you expect
readers to understand what specific compromise you're referring to
from context?

If that's the case, I must point out that I've only seen one definition
from you of what specific compromise you meant when you used the phrase
"the compromise", and I only saw that today.

(segmentation fault)

-- 
Raul


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.

I have spoken of both.  The context has made it clear in each case,
but you have to pay attention to the context.

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of explicit promise which people were required to
make to that effect.

Instead, the only thing you can point at is a SUBTITLE and -- if you
want to get fancy -- the absence of some specific phrases from a rather
brief document.

In other words, you're taking an ambiguity and blowing it out of
proportion.

In my opinion, what that document is promising is a lack of dependencies
on non-free, not a requirement that people talk a certain way.

-- 
Raul


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> 
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".

Ok.

Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.

And, no, non-free is not part of the debian distribution, but it is
offered by the debian project on debian infrastructure.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.

The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Necessary for what purpose?

You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free.  It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is.  I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that we could work from there towards a common
understanding.

We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity.  I
already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
for closed drivers, non-free documentation for free software, for
example. 

> Lots of people seem to be taking the view that if they personally don't
> need anything in non-free, that means that something's broken.

I haven't heard anyone take that view.

> > I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
> > disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.
> 
> I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we provide them.

First, some people have been reading the social contract as if it were
a promise to provide non-free packages to users.

> But that's not the same as agreeing that we should forbid them from
> being provided.

We can't forbid them.  How could we?  What we can do is not make it
Debian's job to provide them.

> Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't prevent
> distribution, but which requires significant time to sort out, the
> package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.

How exactly does the presence of non-free, as opposed to non-free.org,
help this?  

> In my experience, either [a] upstream genuinely wants the software to
> be free, or [b] upstream could care less.  Who is it that cares about
> Debian and is satisfied with non-free?

We hear of upstream maintainers sometimes say they want their stuff to
be in Debian, and say that it's important, but resist making it free.
An excellent example is the FSF, but there have been others.

Moreover, why is it Debian's job to provide them advertising?  

> > But this may not really respond to your question; I could only guess
> > at just what you were looking for, so if it is not as responsive as
> > you'd like, then please amplify the question a little or explain in
> > more detail what the flexibility is that you have, and what about that
> > flexibility helps our goals.
> 
> Well, for example, I want to be able to distribute documentation which
> has "no modify" clauses.

Sure, but the question here is: can you explain why non-free.org is so
much worse than non-free?  Note that BTS is far less relevant to a
documentation package...

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Necessary for what purpose?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:25:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
> non-free.  It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
> necessary it is.  I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
> word means for you, and that we could work from there towards a common
> understanding.

A variety of purposes, yes.  Satisfying a variety of needs for a variety
of people, yes.  Whether or not this qualifies as "lots" is a different
issue.

> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity.  I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> for closed drivers, non-free documentation for free software, for
> example. 

I agree that those are in the set.

> > Lots of people seem to be taking the view that if they personally don't
> > need anything in non-free, that means that something's broken.
> 
> I haven't heard anyone take that view.

I said that wrong.  However:

[a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
personal need for any of it, and

[b] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not state how
dumping non-free is good for people who do have a need for some of it.

The closest to [b] I've seen is a statement of the idea that people <>.
[As opposed to giving up and going with some other distribution.]  But no
one has presented any concrete facts to suggest that "people will write
more software is a likely response" and "people will abandon debian"
is an unlikely response.

Personally, I think that until Debian is a lot more "developer friendly",
"abandon debian" is the more likely response.  [When -- perhaps --
independent sites, like maybe slashdot, freshmeat or lwn are saying how
great Debian is for hacking/developing new software.]

> > > I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
> > > disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.
> > 
> > I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we provide them.
> 
> First, some people have been reading the social contract as if it were
> a promise to provide non-free packages to users.

I think you're overstating that case.  I think you're confusing the
distinction between practical promises (which might include non-free
as an element) and specific promises about non-free (regardless of the
ultimate value to the user).

> > But that's not the same as agreeing that we should forbid them from
> > being provided.
> 
> We can't forbid them.  How could we?  What we can do is not make it
> Debian's job to provide them.

I meant there to be an implicit "with Debian" at the tail end of that
sentence.  We can forbid them from being provided from our archives.

> > Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't prevent
> > distribution, but which requires significant time to sort out, the
> > package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.
> 
> How exactly does the presence of non-free, as opposed to non-free.org,
> help this?  

That depends on whether non-free.org is a part of Debian or not.  If it's
not, then there's a whole bunch of coordination issues that need to
be addressed.

Or are you saying we should explicitly point our users at some non-debian
outfit, if they want their system to work in a comprehensible fashion?

> > In my experience, either [a] upstream genuinely wants the software to
> > be free, or [b] upstream could care less.  Who is it that cares about
> > Debian and is satisfied with non-free?
> 
> We hear of upstream maintainers sometimes say they want their stuff to
> be in Debian, and say that it's important, but resist making it free.
> An excellent example is the FSF, but there have been others.
>
> Moreover, why is it Debian's job to provide them advertising?  

That's easy: it's not Debian's job to provide them advertising.

> > > But this may not really respond to your question; I could only guess
> > > at just what you were looking for, so if it is not as responsive as
> > > you'd like, then please amplify the question a little or explain in
> > > more detail what the flexibility is that you have, and what about that
> > > flexibility helps our goals.
> > 
> > Well, for example, I want to be able to distribute documentation which
> > has "no modify" clauses.
> 
> Sure, but the question here is: can you explain why non-free.org is so
> much worse than non-free?  Note that BTS is far less relevant to a
> documentation package...

Well, for example:

  What happens when the copyright changes and we can distribute it?

  What happens when non-free.org messes up the package?

  How do we NMU non-free.org?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:

On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that 
upto

now, nobody cared enough to take the steps needed to make this happen.


Possibly, nobody wants to be that vindictive against a single 
maintainer who could quite easily question their selection as the 
first such case. Alternatively, Suffield's drop GR does it as a 
general principle. Maybe I am wrong and no non-free maintainer would 
take it badly if tech-ctte was asked to overrule them.



We delayed only because it is the FSF, if it was anyone else ...


Do you have a case history to back that claim up? I thought it was 
delayed just because it was a shedload of packages, which take time to 
replace, so more debian time is devoted to working on a possible fix.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free
> with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed
> hardware?

Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and
Korean users who can't view PDFs in their own language without packages
like cmap-adobe-japan1, xpdf-japanese etc?

It's not like they can choose to use the free "nv" driver instead of the
closed source "nvidia"; TTBOMK there is no free solution at all.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[MJ Ray]

A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:

On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that 
upto
now, nobody cared enough to take the steps needed to make this happen.
Possibly, nobody wants to be that vindictive against a single 
maintainer who could quite easily question their selection as the 
first such case. Alternatively, Suffield's drop GR does it as a 
general principle. Maybe I am wrong and no non-free maintainer would 
take it badly if tech-ctte was asked to overrule them.

We delayed only because it is the FSF, if it was anyone else ...
Do you have a case history to back that claim up? I thought it was 
delayed just because it was a shedload of packages, which take time to 
replace, so more debian time is devoted to working on a possible fix.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free
> with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed
> hardware?

Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and
Korean users who can't view PDFs in their own language without packages
like cmap-adobe-japan1, xpdf-japanese etc?

It's not like they can choose to use the free "nv" driver instead of the
closed source "nvidia"; TTBOMK there is no free solution at all.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
> > > embodied in the social contract.
> > 
> > Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
> 
> You're losing track of the thread.  I said the compromise is already
> getting violated by you and others, and so it might as well be
> dropped.

Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.

And i thought we were searching for a compomise between the drop
non-free position and the keep non-free position, which is much more
constructive and worthwil (?) than anything we have said these past
month here about this issue.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think that's a decent objective.  But we have historically had
> things in non-free even when we did have alternatives.  Things that go
> in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
> enough to satisfy that things have.  There is independent review, from
> the FTP masters and debian-legal about such things.

Yeah, but since non-free has been mostly abandoned, this is more a by
product of the relative unimportance of non-free than a deliberative
will.

It takes time and effort to go over non-free and purge packages from
there, time and effort i suspect the non-free maintainers don't care
about, wanting to limit their involvement with only the strict
necessary, that is their package, the opponene of non-free won't even
look at it, and the ftp-master find non-free to be too insignificant to
look at in detail.

> So I would like to see non-free (if it remains) have a requirement
> that things be necessary, or only there in the absence of free
> alternatives, or something like that; and I think such a requirement
> should be enforced by more than the maintainer's say-so.  

But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that upto
now, nobody cared enough to take the steps needed to make this happen.

But still, we have to stay balanced, it is not only the maintainer who
has to say so, but he should also have its word to say, and just a let's
remove foo, because bar in main is equivalent, without really
argumenting about this, is not enough.

Also, you will have to compare on many things : 

  1) functionality, including interface with other programs.
  2) relative freedom of the licence, and hopes of future change.
  3) cleanliness of the code base, and bug level.
  4) activity of upstream, and degree of followup and maintainership.

Well, there may be other issues, but i guess these are the most
important ones.

> > Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
> > absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
> > that [2] will cease to be an issue.
> 
> No, that's not really what I'm doing.  I hope that non-free.org would
> exist, and I would hope that the Debian packages now in non-free would
> find a home there.  I would hope that users learn how to add the right
> apt-get line for it, just as they must learn to add non-free now.  

Well, you see the difference. I hope that some day, not so far away as
aj said, non-free would be empty, or at least that the duration of
packages in there would be rather small.

> Right now, the standards for main and contrib are very rigid and
> fairly precise, but we have in practice allowed for some flexibility
> around the timing of things (for example, the current lengthy delay in

Yeah, but these flexibility is dependent of the upstream author. We
delayed only because it is the FSF, if it was anyone else ...

> I don't view non-free as a wonderful tool for dealing with "licensing
> problems".  Indeed, I would guess that we have been hampered by having
> upstream people say "well, we shouldn't make it free, after all,
> you'll still distribute it".  I don't think that helps at all; if my

Please tell me, of all packages in non-free, which one you know upstream
to have said that.

> I believe that we need to send the message to upstream authors that we
> stand for free software, and it is not our job to help them with
> non-free software.  Where this is tricky is in helping our *users*

Yeah, but then again, i believe, and i know from experience, that you
can get the same message aroudn while still having the package in
non-free. After all, the fact that the package doesn't go on the CD set
is problematic enough, and we can make it clearer that the non-free
packages are there, on probe, for a limited time, until either they
change their mind, or a free replacement is found.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
> > > embodied in the social contract.
> > 
> > Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
> 
> You're losing track of the thread.  I said the compromise is already
> getting violated by you and others, and so it might as well be
> dropped.

Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.

And i thought we were searching for a compomise between the drop
non-free position and the keep non-free position, which is much more
constructive and worthwil (?) than anything we have said these past
month here about this issue.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think that's a decent objective.  But we have historically had
> things in non-free even when we did have alternatives.  Things that go
> in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
> enough to satisfy that things have.  There is independent review, from
> the FTP masters and debian-legal about such things.

Yeah, but since non-free has been mostly abandoned, this is more a by
product of the relative unimportance of non-free than a deliberative
will.

It takes time and effort to go over non-free and purge packages from
there, time and effort i suspect the non-free maintainers don't care
about, wanting to limit their involvement with only the strict
necessary, that is their package, the opponene of non-free won't even
look at it, and the ftp-master find non-free to be too insignificant to
look at in detail.

> So I would like to see non-free (if it remains) have a requirement
> that things be necessary, or only there in the absence of free
> alternatives, or something like that; and I think such a requirement
> should be enforced by more than the maintainer's say-so.  

But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that upto
now, nobody cared enough to take the steps needed to make this happen.

But still, we have to stay balanced, it is not only the maintainer who
has to say so, but he should also have its word to say, and just a let's
remove foo, because bar in main is equivalent, without really
argumenting about this, is not enough.

Also, you will have to compare on many things : 

  1) functionality, including interface with other programs.
  2) relative freedom of the licence, and hopes of future change.
  3) cleanliness of the code base, and bug level.
  4) activity of upstream, and degree of followup and maintainership.

Well, there may be other issues, but i guess these are the most
important ones.

> > Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
> > absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
> > that [2] will cease to be an issue.
> 
> No, that's not really what I'm doing.  I hope that non-free.org would
> exist, and I would hope that the Debian packages now in non-free would
> find a home there.  I would hope that users learn how to add the right
> apt-get line for it, just as they must learn to add non-free now.  

Well, you see the difference. I hope that some day, not so far away as
aj said, non-free would be empty, or at least that the duration of
packages in there would be rather small.

> Right now, the standards for main and contrib are very rigid and
> fairly precise, but we have in practice allowed for some flexibility
> around the timing of things (for example, the current lengthy delay in

Yeah, but these flexibility is dependent of the upstream author. We
delayed only because it is the FSF, if it was anyone else ...

> I don't view non-free as a wonderful tool for dealing with "licensing
> problems".  Indeed, I would guess that we have been hampered by having
> upstream people say "well, we shouldn't make it free, after all,
> you'll still distribute it".  I don't think that helps at all; if my

Please tell me, of all packages in non-free, which one you know upstream
to have said that.

> I believe that we need to send the message to upstream authors that we
> stand for free software, and it is not our job to help them with
> non-free software.  Where this is tricky is in helping our *users*

Yeah, but then again, i believe, and i know from experience, that you
can get the same message aroudn while still having the package in
non-free. After all, the fact that the package doesn't go on the CD set
is problematic enough, and we can make it clearer that the non-free
packages are there, on probe, for a limited time, until either they
change their mind, or a free replacement is found.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

> > You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> > at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> > preventing us from talking about what the point is.

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm interested in hearing your way of looking at things, not your
> telling me that I won't listen to it.  Please, do share it!

Either

[a] Limit the scope of the discussion by telling me what "it" is,
or
[b] Respond to what I have written.

> I think that's a decent objective.  But we have historically had
> things in non-free even when we did have alternatives.

So, we've been slow to react.  

Or do you want to talk about current problems?

> Things that go in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers
> say-so is not enough to satisfy that things have.  There is independent
> review, from the FTP masters and debian-legal about such things.

Ok.  Sounds like we're doing things right, though -- while we don't
always make perfect decisions at every instant in time, we still spot
problems and work to solve them

> So I would like to see non-free (if it remains) have a requirement
> that things be necessary, or only there in the absence of free
> alternatives, or something like that; and I think such a requirement
> should be enforced by more than the maintainer's say-so.  

Necessary for what purpose?

Lots of people seem to be taking the view that if they personally don't
need anything in non-free, that means that something's broken.

In my opinion, that means that we're doing this right -- we don't want
many people to have to use non-free.

> > Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
> > absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
> > that [2] will cease to be an issue.
> 
> No, that's not really what I'm doing.  I hope that non-free.org would
> exist, and I would hope that the Debian packages now in non-free would
> find a home there.  I would hope that users learn how to add the right
> apt-get line for it, just as they must learn to add non-free now.  

Ok, so you are also hoping various things.  I understand that.

> I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
> disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.

I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we provide them.

But that's not the same as agreeing that we should forbid them from
being provided.

> > And, granted, in some cases people might react to pressure positively
> > where they would not have otherwise.  But, in tossing non-free, you're
> > tossing out a fair bit of the flexibility our project has to deal with
> > odd licensing problems.  And for what?
> 
> How do you see this flexibility working now?  I think I don't
> understand the question, and I would like to be sure I do before I try
> to give an answer to it.  

Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't prevent
distribution, but which requires significant time to sort out, the
package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.

Pointing at successful examples (for example, java support) might not
be very convincing to you, because by definition any successful example
is something that no longer has to be in non-free.  Other examples might
not be very convincing because they're not examples of where we've gotten
rid of non-free.

So... what more do you need to know?

> Right now, the standards for main and contrib are very rigid and
> fairly precise, but we have in practice allowed for some flexibility
> around the timing of things (for example, the current lengthy delay in
> dealing with the GNU FDL).  We have allowed anything whatsoever in
> non-free provided we have the legal right to copy it from our server
> in a convenient way.

And provided it makes sense that "anything" this would have some use,
value or benefit to our users.  There's lots of shareware, for example,
which we do not bother distributing.

> I don't view non-free as a wonderful tool for dealing with "licensing
> problems".  Indeed, I would guess that we have been hampered by having
> upstream people say "well, we shouldn't make it free, after all,
> you'll still distribute it".  I don't think that helps at all; if my
> guess is right, then the flexibility you praise is doing a detriment.

Do you have significant evidence to back up these opinions?

In my experience, either [a] upstream genuinely wants the software to
be free, or [b] upstream could care less.  Who is it that cares about
Debian and is satisfied with non-free?

> I believe that we need to send the message to upstream authors that we
> stand for free software, and it is not our job to help them with
> non-free software.  Where this is tricky is in helping our *users*
> with non-free software; I don't mind doing that nearly as much.  But
> it is not in the long-term interests of our users to have non-free
> software.

Ok, but is there a

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> preventing us from talking about what the point is.

I'm interested in hearing your way of looking at things, not your
telling me that I won't listen to it.  Please, do share it!

> [1] Distribute a great, free operating system.
> [2] Make it as useful as possible
> 
> Non-free has nothing to do with [1], and is a crutch for [2] where we
> don't have any better alternatives.

I think that's a decent objective.  But we have historically had
things in non-free even when we did have alternatives.  Things that go
in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
enough to satisfy that things have.  There is independent review, from
the FTP masters and debian-legal about such things.

So I would like to see non-free (if it remains) have a requirement
that things be necessary, or only there in the absence of free
alternatives, or something like that; and I think such a requirement
should be enforced by more than the maintainer's say-so.  

> Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
> absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
> that [2] will cease to be an issue.

No, that's not really what I'm doing.  I hope that non-free.org would
exist, and I would hope that the Debian packages now in non-free would
find a home there.  I would hope that users learn how to add the right
apt-get line for it, just as they must learn to add non-free now.  

I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.

> And, granted, in some cases people might react to pressure positively
> where they would not have otherwise.  But, in tossing non-free, you're
> tossing out a fair bit of the flexibility our project has to deal with
> odd licensing problems.  And for what?

How do you see this flexibility working now?  I think I don't
understand the question, and I would like to be sure I do before I try
to give an answer to it.  

Right now, the standards for main and contrib are very rigid and
fairly precise, but we have in practice allowed for some flexibility
around the timing of things (for example, the current lengthy delay in
dealing with the GNU FDL).  We have allowed anything whatsoever in
non-free provided we have the legal right to copy it from our server
in a convenient way.

I don't view non-free as a wonderful tool for dealing with "licensing
problems".  Indeed, I would guess that we have been hampered by having
upstream people say "well, we shouldn't make it free, after all,
you'll still distribute it".  I don't think that helps at all; if my
guess is right, then the flexibility you praise is doing a detriment.

I believe that we need to send the message to upstream authors that we
stand for free software, and it is not our job to help them with
non-free software.  Where this is tricky is in helping our *users*
with non-free software; I don't mind doing that nearly as much.  But
it is not in the long-term interests of our users to have non-free
software.

I believe our users are better served by having the difference in
licensing be met with a clearly marked difference in the organizations
providing the software.  I do not believe our users are well served by
the appearance that Debian is just fine with and happy to distribute
non-free software.  If we are going to do it, I believe we should do
it grudgingly, not eagerly, and we should be constantly trying to stop
when we can, and only continuing because we feel we must--and I
believe that decision should be made package-by-package, and should
not depend on just the decision of one maintainer.

But this may not really respond to your question; I could only guess
at just what you were looking for, so if it is not as responsive as
you'd like, then please amplify the question a little or explain in
more detail what the flexibility is that you have, and what about that
flexibility helps our goals.

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

> > You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> > at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> > preventing us from talking about what the point is.

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm interested in hearing your way of looking at things, not your
> telling me that I won't listen to it.  Please, do share it!

Either

[a] Limit the scope of the discussion by telling me what "it" is,
or
[b] Respond to what I have written.

> I think that's a decent objective.  But we have historically had
> things in non-free even when we did have alternatives.

So, we've been slow to react.  

Or do you want to talk about current problems?

> Things that go in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers
> say-so is not enough to satisfy that things have.  There is independent
> review, from the FTP masters and debian-legal about such things.

Ok.  Sounds like we're doing things right, though -- while we don't
always make perfect decisions at every instant in time, we still spot
problems and work to solve them

> So I would like to see non-free (if it remains) have a requirement
> that things be necessary, or only there in the absence of free
> alternatives, or something like that; and I think such a requirement
> should be enforced by more than the maintainer's say-so.  

Necessary for what purpose?

Lots of people seem to be taking the view that if they personally don't
need anything in non-free, that means that something's broken.

In my opinion, that means that we're doing this right -- we don't want
many people to have to use non-free.

> > Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
> > absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
> > that [2] will cease to be an issue.
> 
> No, that's not really what I'm doing.  I hope that non-free.org would
> exist, and I would hope that the Debian packages now in non-free would
> find a home there.  I would hope that users learn how to add the right
> apt-get line for it, just as they must learn to add non-free now.  

Ok, so you are also hoping various things.  I understand that.

> I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
> disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.

I agree that we shouldn't make any kinds of guarantees that we provide them.

But that's not the same as agreeing that we should forbid them from
being provided.

> > And, granted, in some cases people might react to pressure positively
> > where they would not have otherwise.  But, in tossing non-free, you're
> > tossing out a fair bit of the flexibility our project has to deal with
> > odd licensing problems.  And for what?
> 
> How do you see this flexibility working now?  I think I don't
> understand the question, and I would like to be sure I do before I try
> to give an answer to it.  

Right now, if there's some kind of copyright problem which doesn't prevent
distribution, but which requires significant time to sort out, the
package can be moved to non-free, until it's solved.

Pointing at successful examples (for example, java support) might not
be very convincing to you, because by definition any successful example
is something that no longer has to be in non-free.  Other examples might
not be very convincing because they're not examples of where we've gotten
rid of non-free.

So... what more do you need to know?

> Right now, the standards for main and contrib are very rigid and
> fairly precise, but we have in practice allowed for some flexibility
> around the timing of things (for example, the current lengthy delay in
> dealing with the GNU FDL).  We have allowed anything whatsoever in
> non-free provided we have the legal right to copy it from our server
> in a convenient way.

And provided it makes sense that "anything" this would have some use,
value or benefit to our users.  There's lots of shareware, for example,
which we do not bother distributing.

> I don't view non-free as a wonderful tool for dealing with "licensing
> problems".  Indeed, I would guess that we have been hampered by having
> upstream people say "well, we shouldn't make it free, after all,
> you'll still distribute it".  I don't think that helps at all; if my
> guess is right, then the flexibility you praise is doing a detriment.

Do you have significant evidence to back up these opinions?

In my experience, either [a] upstream genuinely wants the software to
be free, or [b] upstream could care less.  Who is it that cares about
Debian and is satisfied with non-free?

> I believe that we need to send the message to upstream authors that we
> stand for free software, and it is not our job to help them with
> non-free software.  Where this is tricky is in helping our *users*
> with non-free software; I don't mind doing that nearly as much.  But
> it is not in the long-term interests of our users to have non-free
> software.

Ok, but is there a

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> preventing us from talking about what the point is.

I'm interested in hearing your way of looking at things, not your
telling me that I won't listen to it.  Please, do share it!

> [1] Distribute a great, free operating system.
> [2] Make it as useful as possible
> 
> Non-free has nothing to do with [1], and is a crutch for [2] where we
> don't have any better alternatives.

I think that's a decent objective.  But we have historically had
things in non-free even when we did have alternatives.  Things that go
in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
enough to satisfy that things have.  There is independent review, from
the FTP masters and debian-legal about such things.

So I would like to see non-free (if it remains) have a requirement
that things be necessary, or only there in the absence of free
alternatives, or something like that; and I think such a requirement
should be enforced by more than the maintainer's say-so.  

> Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
> absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
> that [2] will cease to be an issue.

No, that's not really what I'm doing.  I hope that non-free.org would
exist, and I would hope that the Debian packages now in non-free would
find a home there.  I would hope that users learn how to add the right
apt-get line for it, just as they must learn to add non-free now.  

I agree with you that the non-free packages need to exist.  What I
disagree about is that it must be Debian's job to provide them.

> And, granted, in some cases people might react to pressure positively
> where they would not have otherwise.  But, in tossing non-free, you're
> tossing out a fair bit of the flexibility our project has to deal with
> odd licensing problems.  And for what?

How do you see this flexibility working now?  I think I don't
understand the question, and I would like to be sure I do before I try
to give an answer to it.  

Right now, the standards for main and contrib are very rigid and
fairly precise, but we have in practice allowed for some flexibility
around the timing of things (for example, the current lengthy delay in
dealing with the GNU FDL).  We have allowed anything whatsoever in
non-free provided we have the legal right to copy it from our server
in a convenient way.

I don't view non-free as a wonderful tool for dealing with "licensing
problems".  Indeed, I would guess that we have been hampered by having
upstream people say "well, we shouldn't make it free, after all,
you'll still distribute it".  I don't think that helps at all; if my
guess is right, then the flexibility you praise is doing a detriment.

I believe that we need to send the message to upstream authors that we
stand for free software, and it is not our job to help them with
non-free software.  Where this is tricky is in helping our *users*
with non-free software; I don't mind doing that nearly as much.  But
it is not in the long-term interests of our users to have non-free
software.

I believe our users are better served by having the difference in
licensing be met with a clearly marked difference in the organizations
providing the software.  I do not believe our users are well served by
the appearance that Debian is just fine with and happy to distribute
non-free software.  If we are going to do it, I believe we should do
it grudgingly, not eagerly, and we should be constantly trying to stop
when we can, and only continuing because we feel we must--and I
believe that decision should be made package-by-package, and should
not depend on just the decision of one maintainer.

But this may not really respond to your question; I could only guess
at just what you were looking for, so if it is not as responsive as
you'd like, then please amplify the question a little or explain in
more detail what the flexibility is that you have, and what about that
flexibility helps our goals.

Thomas


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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
> > see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
> > your opinions.

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:42:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm happy to believe that there are other ways to achieve the goal,
> but you haven't given any that I've seen.  If you have, can you please
> repeat them, because I've missed them.  Just announcing that I must
> not have been looking, or am blind, or closed minded, or whatever, is
> beside the point.

There's more than one goal -- there's many goals, with varying degrees
of overlap.

You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
preventing us from talking about what the point is.

Or, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the only reason Debian exists is to get rid
of the non-free section of its archive.  Maybe the people who have so
generously compromised for so long, by allowing it to exist can finally
save the day by introducing the true compromise of deleting it to save
our users from those nasty non-free documents and programs.

But, even if that's the case, why is it that when I ask the people who
have this great insight to explain their reasons, I get comments like
"If you don't understand, it's not possible to explain it to you"?  Or,
if no explanation is possible, why has so much been posted on this topic
by such proponents?

So... what are the goals?

[1] Distribute a great, free operating system.
[2] Make it as useful as possible

Non-free has nothing to do with [1], and is a crutch for [2] where we
don't have any better alternatives.

You want us to get rid of the crutch, but you don't want to include
any specific steps to address the issues associated with [2] (such as
that multi-billion software industry cranking out new data standards).
Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
that [2] will cease to be an issue.

And, granted, in some cases people might react to pressure positively
where they would not have otherwise.  But, in tossing non-free, you're
tossing out a fair bit of the flexibility our project has to deal with
odd licensing problems.  And for what?

Every time I ask that question, I get a really big non-answer.

Reading between the lines: we would be giving up that flexibility because
of fanaticism.

If we're going to toss non-free, let's at least spell out the reasons
for doing so.

And by <> I mean something more than "Treating the first
subtitle in the social contract as a complete argument, while ignoring
the following text which spells out what is meant."

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
> see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
> your opinions.

I'm happy to believe that there are other ways to achieve the goal,
but you haven't given any that I've seen.  If you have, can you please
repeat them, because I've missed them.  Just announcing that I must
not have been looking, or am blind, or closed minded, or whatever, is
beside the point.

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:43:58AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >From two places:
> 
> 1) You haven't suggested anything to do, and
> 2) You proposed an amendment which is a "do nothing" resolution.

The only way this makes any sense is if by "do nothing" you mean "do
nothing to get rid of non-free".

But that's dishonest, because that's equivalent to claiming that the
only actions that exist are the actions you're advocating.

If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
your opinions.

-- 
Raul

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > > I'm saying that the rationale -- where this GR only scratches the surface
> > > of the changes which would need to be done to satisfy the rationale --
> > > would lead us into bigger problems.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:37:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So we should do nothing because to do everything would lead us "into
> > bigger problems"?  Then let's do what we can.
> 
> Where did you get the idea that I said we should do nothing?

>From two places:

1) You haven't suggested anything to do, and
2) You proposed an amendment which is a "do nothing" resolution.

Thomas

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
> > embodied in the social contract.
> 
> Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.

You're losing track of the thread.  I said the compromise is already
getting violated by you and others, and so it might as well be
dropped.

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller]

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
> > see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
> > your opinions.

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:42:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm happy to believe that there are other ways to achieve the goal,
> but you haven't given any that I've seen.  If you have, can you please
> repeat them, because I've missed them.  Just announcing that I must
> not have been looking, or am blind, or closed minded, or whatever, is
> beside the point.

There's more than one goal -- there's many goals, with varying degrees
of overlap.

You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
preventing us from talking about what the point is.

Or, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the only reason Debian exists is to get rid
of the non-free section of its archive.  Maybe the people who have so
generously compromised for so long, by allowing it to exist can finally
save the day by introducing the true compromise of deleting it to save
our users from those nasty non-free documents and programs.

But, even if that's the case, why is it that when I ask the people who
have this great insight to explain their reasons, I get comments like
"If you don't understand, it's not possible to explain it to you"?  Or,
if no explanation is possible, why has so much been posted on this topic
by such proponents?

So... what are the goals?

[1] Distribute a great, free operating system.
[2] Make it as useful as possible

Non-free has nothing to do with [1], and is a crutch for [2] where we
don't have any better alternatives.

You want us to get rid of the crutch, but you don't want to include
any specific steps to address the issues associated with [2] (such as
that multi-billion software industry cranking out new data standards).
Instead, you're implying that people will feel more pressured by the
absense of non-free and will therefore they will fix the problems such
that [2] will cease to be an issue.

And, granted, in some cases people might react to pressure positively
where they would not have otherwise.  But, in tossing non-free, you're
tossing out a fair bit of the flexibility our project has to deal with
odd licensing problems.  And for what?

Every time I ask that question, I get a really big non-answer.

Reading between the lines: we would be giving up that flexibility because
of fanaticism.

If we're going to toss non-free, let's at least spell out the reasons
for doing so.

And by <> I mean something more than "Treating the first
subtitle in the social contract as a complete argument, while ignoring
the following text which spells out what is meant."

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


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