Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---

Seconded.

FWIW, I would also second an amended version of this proposal which also
scrapped the contrib section.  I am not proposing such, however, as I am
not convinced that retention of the contrib section causes the same sort
of cognitive dissonance that the non-free section does.

For one thing, there is a tradition of "contrib" meaning "not our stuff,
but housed here".  Red Hat Software and the X Consortium have both used
this term in that manner.

For another thing, the fact that the materials in contrib are Free
Software counts for something.

I realize, though, that neither of the above factors may be important to
others.  Speaking as a maintainer of packages in main and contrib (but
not in non-free), I think it's more important that we dissociate
ourselves from the non-free section than that we retain the contrib
section.  I can easily host my contrib package at an alternative
location.

(I wonder if Robert Woodcock continues to hold the belief he implicitly
expressed about my participation being the most important factor driving
this discussion.  :)  Perhaps he'd care to run his statistics again.  :) )

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Computer security is like an onion:
Debian GNU/Linux   |the more you dig in, the more you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |want to cry.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Cory Altheide


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---

Seconded.

FWIW, I would also second an amended version of this proposal which also
scrapped the contrib section.  I am not proposing such, however, as I am
not convinced that retention of the contrib section causes the same sort
of cognitive dissonance that the non-free section does.

For one thing, there is a tradition of "contrib" meaning "not our stuff,
but housed here".  Red Hat Software and the X Consortium have both used
this term in that manner.

For another thing, the fact that the materials in contrib are Free
Software counts for something.

I realize, though, that neither of the above factors may be important to
others.  Speaking as a maintainer of packages in main and contrib (but
not in non-free), I think it's more important that we dissociate
ourselves from the non-free section than that we retain the contrib
section.  I can easily host my contrib package at an alternative
location.

(I wonder if Robert Woodcock continues to hold the belief he implicitly
expressed about my participation being the most important factor driving
this discussion.  :)  Perhaps he'd care to run his statistics again.  :) )

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Computer security is like an onion:
Debian GNU/Linux   |the more you dig in, the more you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |want to cry.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Cory Altheide


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:04:30AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
> > deciding what happens in Debian.
> No. That is divided between GRs and the technical committee, and this
> falls squarely under the purview of tech-ctte.

GRs can overrule any decision the tech ctte makes -- that's 4.1(4).

> I don't believe that is an accurate reading of the constitution. It
> carefully evades permitting GRs on technical policy, instead giving
> that problem to tech-ctte (and the reasons for that are fairly
> obvious). I don't think that trying to find exploitable loopholes in
> the wording is a good idea.

There's nothing stopping a GR that resolves to overrule any decision
to be made by a delegate or the tech ctte that's against the wishes of
the developer body. And it's a fair more sensible and efficient method
to decide what to do about things on a single GR, in advance of doing
things, than to give no suggestion on what you want to have done, but
throw some threats about what might happen if people do the wrong thing.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:04:30AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
> > deciding what happens in Debian.
> No. That is divided between GRs and the technical committee, and this
> falls squarely under the purview of tech-ctte.

GRs can overrule any decision the tech ctte makes -- that's 4.1(4).

> I don't believe that is an accurate reading of the constitution. It
> carefully evades permitting GRs on technical policy, instead giving
> that problem to tech-ctte (and the reasons for that are fairly
> obvious). I don't think that trying to find exploitable loopholes in
> the wording is a good idea.

There's nothing stopping a GR that resolves to overrule any decision
to be made by a delegate or the tech ctte that's against the wishes of
the developer body. And it's a fair more sensible and efficient method
to decide what to do about things on a single GR, in advance of doing
things, than to give no suggestion on what you want to have done, but
throw some threats about what might happen if people do the wrong thing.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:16:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not 
> > > making
> > > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> > There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
> > affect this. Decisions that are not part of the resolution have no
> > force, and a GR can't make technical decisions.
> 
> Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
> deciding what happens in Debian.

No. That is divided between GRs and the technical committee, and this
falls squarely under the purview of tech-ctte.

> If you're feeling pedantic, consider it
> to be falling under the clause that allows the developer body to override
> any decision made by any delegate. There's nothing that requires the
> decision to have already been made before it's trumped by the developers.

I don't believe that is an accurate reading of the constitution. It
carefully evades permitting GRs on technical policy, instead giving
that problem to tech-ctte (and the reasons for that are fairly
obvious). I don't think that trying to find exploitable loopholes in
the wording is a good idea.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:16:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> > > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> > There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
> > affect this. Decisions that are not part of the resolution have no
> > force, and a GR can't make technical decisions.
> 
> Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
> deciding what happens in Debian.

No. That is divided between GRs and the technical committee, and this
falls squarely under the purview of tech-ctte.

> If you're feeling pedantic, consider it
> to be falling under the clause that allows the developer body to override
> any decision made by any delegate. There's nothing that requires the
> decision to have already been made before it's trumped by the developers.

I don't believe that is an accurate reading of the constitution. It
carefully evades permitting GRs on technical policy, instead giving
that problem to tech-ctte (and the reasons for that are fairly
obvious). I don't think that trying to find exploitable loopholes in
the wording is a good idea.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
> affect this. Decisions that are not part of the resolution have no
> force, and a GR can't make technical decisions.

Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
deciding what happens in Debian. If you're feeling pedantic, consider it
to be falling under the clause that allows the developer body to override
any decision made by any delegate. There's nothing that requires the
decision to have already been made before it's trumped by the developers.

> All that we can do is hope that the people in positions of
> responsibility will behave responsibly, and replace them if they
> don't.

It might be all you are doing, or all you're willing to do; but it's a
long way off all you can do. Offering informal guidelines and gaining
the consensus of the developer body informally is another option, eg.

Allowing bad things to happen then hoping you can clean up after them is
stupid whether it's a security policy or a management strategy. And while
there's no chance that the ftp admins will do anything they consider to be
particularly bad, that's not going to stop them from doing anything you
consider bad, especially if you refuse to work out what you'd consider
to be reasonable in advance.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
> affect this. Decisions that are not part of the resolution have no
> force, and a GR can't make technical decisions.

Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
deciding what happens in Debian. If you're feeling pedantic, consider it
to be falling under the clause that allows the developer body to override
any decision made by any delegate. There's nothing that requires the
decision to have already been made before it's trumped by the developers.

> All that we can do is hope that the people in positions of
> responsibility will behave responsibly, and replace them if they
> don't.

It might be all you are doing, or all you're willing to do; but it's a
long way off all you can do. Offering informal guidelines and gaining
the consensus of the developer body informally is another option, eg.

Allowing bad things to happen then hoping you can clean up after them is
stupid whether it's a security policy or a management strategy. And while
there's no chance that the ftp admins will do anything they consider to be
particularly bad, that's not going to stop them from doing anything you
consider bad, especially if you refuse to work out what you'd consider
to be reasonable in advance.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>> >> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a
>> >> replacement for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate
>> >> alternative for http).
>>
>> > Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)
>>
>> > Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
>> > University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and
>> > the gopher developers
>>
>> > Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious
>> > argument that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative
>> > for HTTP (for at least some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be
>> > devoting my time to maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't
>> > believe that was, at least sometimes, the case.
>>
>> You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained Gopher
>> pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I have no
>> use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users of
>> your packages, derive value from that protocol.

> Whose subjective determinations of the utility of a package in
> non-free should be controlling?

Why should one be controlling? We do not apply this criteria
 for selection into main -- or for rejecting packages for grounds
 other than licenses in main.

> Moreover, if the utility of a packaged work is a subjective thing,
> why should it be the most important factor determining the retention
> of a policy to distribute such things?  Does it make more sense to
> ground our package distribution policies on less potentially
> controversial criteria?

The utility of software lies mostly for people who use the
 software. People who do not use the software would rarely find it
 useful.  The social contract brought in utility of non-free software,
 and a pledge to support the users use of such software on Debian, and
 mentions the contrib and non-free sections in the same breath.  I,
 for one, find the social contract, as written, persuasive.

> Similarly, when we did we last use anyone's notion of utility as a
> criterion for inclusion in main?

Every single time. All it needs is for a developer to find it
 useful enough to package, and it is in. I suggest we se the same
 criteria for inclusion in non-free.

manoj
-- 
The best things in life are for a fee.
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>> >> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a
>> >> replacement for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate
>> >> alternative for http).
>>
>> > Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)
>>
>> > Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
>> > University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and
>> > the gopher developers
>>
>> > Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious
>> > argument that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative
>> > for HTTP (for at least some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be
>> > devoting my time to maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't
>> > believe that was, at least sometimes, the case.
>>
>> You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained Gopher
>> pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I have no
>> use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users of
>> your packages, derive value from that protocol.

> Whose subjective determinations of the utility of a package in
> non-free should be controlling?

Why should one be controlling? We do not apply this criteria
 for selection into main -- or for rejecting packages for grounds
 other than licenses in main.

> Moreover, if the utility of a packaged work is a subjective thing,
> why should it be the most important factor determining the retention
> of a policy to distribute such things?  Does it make more sense to
> ground our package distribution policies on less potentially
> controversial criteria?

The utility of software lies mostly for people who use the
 software. People who do not use the software would rarely find it
 useful.  The social contract brought in utility of non-free software,
 and a pledge to support the users use of such software on Debian, and
 mentions the contrib and non-free sections in the same breath.  I,
 for one, find the social contract, as written, persuasive.

> Similarly, when we did we last use anyone's notion of utility as a
> criterion for inclusion in main?

Every single time. All it needs is for a developer to find it
 useful enough to package, and it is in. I suggest we se the same
 criteria for inclusion in non-free.

manoj
-- 
The best things in life are for a fee.
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:30:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing,
> >> and so are the people who put it together.
> 
> > That those people may be "special" and "amazing" doesn't necessarily
> > mean they're "good", as we've seen from your replies to my messages
> > to this list and others over the years.  I be must quite a liability
> > to the Project.  :)
> 
>   Yet another illfounded leap of illogic. When, pray, have I
>  said anything about you, or other, being, or not being, good, and
>  what exactly does it have to with the topic at hand?

For me to be able to answer this question, I'll have to know whether you
consider being "good" to be incompatible with actions that tend to
elicit direct personal critiques from for deliberately bad reasoning or
dishonesty[1].  I personally tend to use the stridency with which I am
accused of bad actions as a rough guide to the level of esteem in which
I am held.  However, this may not be an accurate metric when it comes to
your assessments.

Please advise.

[1] I probably would, myself -- hence the wry remark.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:45:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have seen it posited that dropping non-free is inherently a disservice
> to our users, whom we purport to serve.  It is the people in the Debian
> Project who are empowered to make this decision, and authority exercised
> to the deliberate deteriment of those who should be served or protected
> by, it is an abuse of that authority.

Yeah, power without responsibility would be bad.

In the context of this decision about users, a major piece of that
responsibility involves making sure that we have good reasons behind
the decisions we make.

In particular, I really wish you spent more of your debian-vote writing
time on rational arguments pertaining to those reasons instead of this
other stuff you're doing.

Please?

-- 
Raul

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
> >> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
> >> for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
> >> http).
> 
> > Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)
> 
> > Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
> > University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and the
> > gopher developers
> 
> > Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument
> > that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative for HTTP (for
> > at least some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be devoting my time to
> > maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't believe that was, at
> > least sometimes, the case.
> 
>   You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained
>  Gopher pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I
>  have no use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users
>  of your packages, derive value from that protocol. 

Whose subjective determinations of the utility of a package in non-free
should be controlling?

Moreover, if the utility of a packaged work is a subjective thing, why
should it be the most important factor determining the retention of a
policy to distribute such things?  Does it make more sense to ground
our package distribution policies on less potentially controversial
criteria?

Similarly, when we did we last use anyone's notion of utility as a
criterion for inclusion in main?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux   |committing hara-kiri over this, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |I overslept this morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Toshio Yamaguchi


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:07:46AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
> >>
> >> > On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
> >>
> >> > You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so
> >> > before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it
> >> > seems your messages confused me.
> >>
> >> Oh, you don't have to. But you may get more votes if you do
> 
> > Not everything is an exercise in electioneering.
> 
>   I see. So, anything beyond the original proposal, where you
>  try to convince people that the proposal is a good idea, is merely a
>  paltry exercise in electioneering?

Your statement follows from mine how, exactly?

>   In that case, you are doing a yoeman job of electioneering.

Is it wise to base assessments of my conduct on your own actions?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness.  It is
Debian GNU/Linux   |a growing closer.  It beats the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |hell out of card games.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Robert Heinlein


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:21:16AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
> >> conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
> 
> > I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> > in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access
> > to software that isn't actually in it.
> 
>   Yes, your opposition is obviously stupid and ignorant, and
>  liable to take such funny and idiotic stances.
> 
>   This is getting to be quite droll.

Do you ever tire of attacking straw men?  I fear the answer is no, but
I'd rather ask than assume -- a courtesy you seldom see fit to afford
me.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:17:42AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Ah.  If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
> >> the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove
> >> non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
> >> pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
> >> fence.
> >>
> >> Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.
> 
> > I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject.  I
> 
>   This GR is not a poll.

I didn't say it was.

>  However, a poll can easily be set up for the purpose -- and, if you
>  think it is useful, I am sure you can conduct this (you have
>  demonstrated this skillset already)

At present, I do not think I have the time.

Does the Project Secretary object to the usage of the Debian voting
machinery to carry out non-binding surveys, in addition to General
Resolutions voted on through the Standard Resolution Procedure?  Can you
ask him for me, or should I mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>   I think you have lost your grasp of practicality,

Interesting.  At what time do you assert that I still had it?  Or do I
gain and lose it as the moon waxes and wanes -- or more accurately, as I
come into and out of agreement with your position on various issues of
contention?

>  and you want us to vote for your proposals?

As I understand it, I don't have a proposed GR on the table.  I let my
last one die because I ran out of time to advocate it and also keep up
with my other responsibilities.

>  You jump from a transition plan top "a
>  PDF hundreds of pages in length and putting forth a more
>  comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has ever seen
>  before"?

That's known as hyperbole, and was intended to be easily recongized as
such.  I do assume that people reading it are familiar with the many
demands that have been made of the advocates of removing non-free, from
infrastructural transitions involving the Debian Bug Tracking System to
a comprehensive catalog of every non-free package and an enumeration of
licensing issues, available alternatives in main, and so forth.

>  And now you have reduced this from an effort to find a solution to
>  electioneering and polemics.

You provide no foundation for this assertion that I can see.

>  *sigh*. And I had hopes for this discussion.

I see -- so I am solely responsible for any failure of this discussion
to reach consensus?  Upon what rational grounds could you possibly have
expected me to shoulder such a burden?   A burden which, incidentally,
you did not communicate to me in advance.  Why, for instance, should we
not hold Sven Luther, Anthony Towns, Craig Sanders, or yourself as
solely responsible for realizing your "hopes for this discussion"?

For that matter, what *were* those hopes, exactly?

I am finding precious little of substance in the aspersions you cast.

> > It challenges my credulity that dropping non-free would be anywhere
> > close to as painful from a technical and infrastructural perspective
> > as the transition from libc5 to libc6.
> 
>   Apples and oranges.

Please identify your criteria for an apples-to-apples comparison.  Does
a real-world example even exist?  If not, how can any opponent of the GR
reasonably demand a projection of the effort this endeavor will require?
If no one can really know how easy or hard it will be, the discussion is
best confined to other grounds, and if the GR passes we'll just have to
find out how hard it is, leaving our blazed trail for the benefit of
future decision-makers making similar judgements.

>  Though creating the infrastructure, and paying for it, is unlikely to
>  be trivial

Yes; it is generally true that projects require management.

>  And duplicating the administration shall cost hours that may well be
>  spent on Debian.

This also seems a truism; the time Debian developers spend that is
not-for-Debian is time that could have instead been spent on Debian.

Have you a specific prophecy to offer about Debian developers will
realign their priorities to cope with the changed situtation if a GR
dropping non-free should pass?  How about a quanitifable prediction to
offer regarding people who are *not* currently Debian developers, who
may join our project subsequent to our dropping of non-free, or people
who join the nascent non-free Debian package project and thus
potentially relieve the burden formerly shouldered by Debian developers
of packages in non-free?

Are truisms and vague speculations good grounds for deciding one's
position on the GR, one way or the other?  Should we not make up our
minds based on factors we can actually determine?  Isn't that the
rational thing to do?

> > It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously
> > espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocat

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:28:27AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
> > atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)
> 
>   Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
>  secretary, which would be inappropriate conduct?

Is it appropriate to accuse me of igrorance and dishonesty in any other
capacity, particularly when you do not take the time to bolster your
charges with independently verifiable observations?

>   I know.  You tend to emphasize more on the free software part,
>  and not the fact that users need to use non-free software part, which
>  is the facet of Debian I think we are fast losing -- instead of
>  trying to create the best, most useful, the universal operating
>  system, we now wish to make ideologically pure toy systems -- whether
>  or not real world applications would  work on it or not.

You posit a false dilemma.  Or is it your assertion that a system
consisting exclusively of Free Software is of zero practical utility?

Or is it your assertion that an "ideologically pure toy system" may
actually be useful for a great many everyday personal business tasks?

You seem to be urging people to reach certain conclusions without
bothering to validate each of the premises that would get them there.

>   Generallyy, though, one asks the _users_ of tools what an
>  adequate replacement is, not some idle bystander with an axe to
>  grind.

If someone has an axe to grind, how can they be an "idle bystander"?

In any case, do you posit that Debian developers, whose labor produces
the Debian GNU/Linux operating system distribution, should not be
empowered to determine the contents of that distribution?  Or do you
merely want them kept out of the loop in determining the contents of
non-free?

>  Users of netscape have found alternatives -- though people
>  have noted that there are some who would have coinsidered gopher an
>  adequatre replacement.

That different people have different needs, which they satisfy with
different tools, does not strike me as a controversial position.  In
your view, how many users' needs should have to be satisfied by a
packaged Free alternative to a non-free package before that non-free
package is eligible for exclusion from the Debian project?

Or is the entire issue of Free alternatives just a red herring?  Should
a package be kept in non-free as long as someone is willing to maintain
it there, regardless of how many users feel a Free alternative is
equal or superior to it?  If that is true, why do we tolerate the
removal of packages from non-free when they have security holes that we
are unwilling or unable to fix?  Aren't the users and the package
maintainer fit to determine that a security vulnerability is not a
serious enough issue to warrant the package's removal?

> > But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies
> > to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
> 
>   Yet again a failure of logic.

How is an inductively-grounded prediction a failure of logic?  Such an
argument can only fail through ostensive demonstration.  John Goerzen
has already done this.

>  You make som amny illogical leaps in the midst of your polemics it is
>  hard to even argue against them.

To my mind, you seem to be quite up to the task.  Well, at least if I
understand "argue" in the colloquial sense rather than the formal one,
which seems to be mode in which you prefer to conduct this discussion
anyway.

>  I think you are wrong; Ididn't say you are alone.

You have made it obvious that you don't *just* think I am wrong; you
have accused me of a great many other failings as well.  I do find
myself wondering where the stridency of your antipathy comes from.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   Our ignorance is God; what we
Debian GNU/Linux   |   know is science.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Robert Green Ingersoll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:30:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing,
> >> and so are the people who put it together.
> 
> > That those people may be "special" and "amazing" doesn't necessarily
> > mean they're "good", as we've seen from your replies to my messages
> > to this list and others over the years.  I be must quite a liability
> > to the Project.  :)
> 
>   Yet another illfounded leap of illogic. When, pray, have I
>  said anything about you, or other, being, or not being, good, and
>  what exactly does it have to with the topic at hand?

For me to be able to answer this question, I'll have to know whether you
consider being "good" to be incompatible with actions that tend to
elicit direct personal critiques from for deliberately bad reasoning or
dishonesty[1].  I personally tend to use the stridency with which I am
accused of bad actions as a rough guide to the level of esteem in which
I am held.  However, this may not be an accurate metric when it comes to
your assessments.

Please advise.

[1] I probably would, myself -- hence the wry remark.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:45:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have seen it posited that dropping non-free is inherently a disservice
> to our users, whom we purport to serve.  It is the people in the Debian
> Project who are empowered to make this decision, and authority exercised
> to the deliberate deteriment of those who should be served or protected
> by, it is an abuse of that authority.

Yeah, power without responsibility would be bad.

In the context of this decision about users, a major piece of that
responsibility involves making sure that we have good reasons behind
the decisions we make.

In particular, I really wish you spent more of your debian-vote writing
time on rational arguments pertaining to those reasons instead of this
other stuff you're doing.

Please?

-- 
Raul


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:29:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
> >> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)
> 
> > He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT.
> 
>   But it helps to smear up the mud to imply that I would misuse
>  my office, since my arguments run counter to his.

It apparently also helps to draw unfounded extrapolations and invalid
inferences from people's public observations of your techniques of
character assassination.

But, just for the sake of enlightenment, why *should* I expect you to
govern your passions as Project Secretary when you seem unwilling to do
so when speaking as a regular developer?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
> >> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
> >> for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
> >> http).
> 
> > Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)
> 
> > Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
> > University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and the
> > gopher developers
> 
> > Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument
> > that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative for HTTP (for
> > at least some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be devoting my time to
> > maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't believe that was, at
> > least sometimes, the case.
> 
>   You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained
>  Gopher pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I
>  have no use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users
>  of your packages, derive value from that protocol. 

Whose subjective determinations of the utility of a package in non-free
should be controlling?

Moreover, if the utility of a packaged work is a subjective thing, why
should it be the most important factor determining the retention of a
policy to distribute such things?  Does it make more sense to ground
our package distribution policies on less potentially controversial
criteria?

Similarly, when we did we last use anyone's notion of utility as a
criterion for inclusion in main?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux   |committing hara-kiri over this, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |I overslept this morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Toshio Yamaguchi


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:07:46AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
> >>
> >> > On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
> >>
> >> > You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so
> >> > before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it
> >> > seems your messages confused me.
> >>
> >> Oh, you don't have to. But you may get more votes if you do
> 
> > Not everything is an exercise in electioneering.
> 
>   I see. So, anything beyond the original proposal, where you
>  try to convince people that the proposal is a good idea, is merely a
>  paltry exercise in electioneering?

Your statement follows from mine how, exactly?

>   In that case, you are doing a yoeman job of electioneering.

Is it wise to base assessments of my conduct on your own actions?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness.  It is
Debian GNU/Linux   |a growing closer.  It beats the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |hell out of card games.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Robert Heinlein


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:21:16AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
> >> conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
> 
> > I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> > in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access
> > to software that isn't actually in it.
> 
>   Yes, your opposition is obviously stupid and ignorant, and
>  liable to take such funny and idiotic stances.
> 
>   This is getting to be quite droll.

Do you ever tire of attacking straw men?  I fear the answer is no, but
I'd rather ask than assume -- a courtesy you seldom see fit to afford
me.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:17:42AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Ah.  If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
> >> the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove
> >> non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
> >> pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
> >> fence.
> >>
> >> Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.
> 
> > I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject.  I
> 
>   This GR is not a poll.

I didn't say it was.

>  However, a poll can easily be set up for the purpose -- and, if you
>  think it is useful, I am sure you can conduct this (you have
>  demonstrated this skillset already)

At present, I do not think I have the time.

Does the Project Secretary object to the usage of the Debian voting
machinery to carry out non-binding surveys, in addition to General
Resolutions voted on through the Standard Resolution Procedure?  Can you
ask him for me, or should I mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>   I think you have lost your grasp of practicality,

Interesting.  At what time do you assert that I still had it?  Or do I
gain and lose it as the moon waxes and wanes -- or more accurately, as I
come into and out of agreement with your position on various issues of
contention?

>  and you want us to vote for your proposals?

As I understand it, I don't have a proposed GR on the table.  I let my
last one die because I ran out of time to advocate it and also keep up
with my other responsibilities.

>  You jump from a transition plan top "a
>  PDF hundreds of pages in length and putting forth a more
>  comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has ever seen
>  before"?

That's known as hyperbole, and was intended to be easily recongized as
such.  I do assume that people reading it are familiar with the many
demands that have been made of the advocates of removing non-free, from
infrastructural transitions involving the Debian Bug Tracking System to
a comprehensive catalog of every non-free package and an enumeration of
licensing issues, available alternatives in main, and so forth.

>  And now you have reduced this from an effort to find a solution to
>  electioneering and polemics.

You provide no foundation for this assertion that I can see.

>  *sigh*. And I had hopes for this discussion.

I see -- so I am solely responsible for any failure of this discussion
to reach consensus?  Upon what rational grounds could you possibly have
expected me to shoulder such a burden?   A burden which, incidentally,
you did not communicate to me in advance.  Why, for instance, should we
not hold Sven Luther, Anthony Towns, Craig Sanders, or yourself as
solely responsible for realizing your "hopes for this discussion"?

For that matter, what *were* those hopes, exactly?

I am finding precious little of substance in the aspersions you cast.

> > It challenges my credulity that dropping non-free would be anywhere
> > close to as painful from a technical and infrastructural perspective
> > as the transition from libc5 to libc6.
> 
>   Apples and oranges.

Please identify your criteria for an apples-to-apples comparison.  Does
a real-world example even exist?  If not, how can any opponent of the GR
reasonably demand a projection of the effort this endeavor will require?
If no one can really know how easy or hard it will be, the discussion is
best confined to other grounds, and if the GR passes we'll just have to
find out how hard it is, leaving our blazed trail for the benefit of
future decision-makers making similar judgements.

>  Though creating the infrastructure, and paying for it, is unlikely to
>  be trivial

Yes; it is generally true that projects require management.

>  And duplicating the administration shall cost hours that may well be
>  spent on Debian.

This also seems a truism; the time Debian developers spend that is
not-for-Debian is time that could have instead been spent on Debian.

Have you a specific prophecy to offer about Debian developers will
realign their priorities to cope with the changed situtation if a GR
dropping non-free should pass?  How about a quanitifable prediction to
offer regarding people who are *not* currently Debian developers, who
may join our project subsequent to our dropping of non-free, or people
who join the nascent non-free Debian package project and thus
potentially relieve the burden formerly shouldered by Debian developers
of packages in non-free?

Are truisms and vague speculations good grounds for deciding one's
position on the GR, one way or the other?  Should we not make up our
minds based on factors we can actually determine?  Isn't that the
rational thing to do?

> > It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously
> > espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocat

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:28:27AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
> > atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)
> 
>   Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
>  secretary, which would be inappropriate conduct?

Is it appropriate to accuse me of igrorance and dishonesty in any other
capacity, particularly when you do not take the time to bolster your
charges with independently verifiable observations?

>   I know.  You tend to emphasize more on the free software part,
>  and not the fact that users need to use non-free software part, which
>  is the facet of Debian I think we are fast losing -- instead of
>  trying to create the best, most useful, the universal operating
>  system, we now wish to make ideologically pure toy systems -- whether
>  or not real world applications would  work on it or not.

You posit a false dilemma.  Or is it your assertion that a system
consisting exclusively of Free Software is of zero practical utility?

Or is it your assertion that an "ideologically pure toy system" may
actually be useful for a great many everyday personal business tasks?

You seem to be urging people to reach certain conclusions without
bothering to validate each of the premises that would get them there.

>   Generallyy, though, one asks the _users_ of tools what an
>  adequate replacement is, not some idle bystander with an axe to
>  grind.

If someone has an axe to grind, how can they be an "idle bystander"?

In any case, do you posit that Debian developers, whose labor produces
the Debian GNU/Linux operating system distribution, should not be
empowered to determine the contents of that distribution?  Or do you
merely want them kept out of the loop in determining the contents of
non-free?

>  Users of netscape have found alternatives -- though people
>  have noted that there are some who would have coinsidered gopher an
>  adequatre replacement.

That different people have different needs, which they satisfy with
different tools, does not strike me as a controversial position.  In
your view, how many users' needs should have to be satisfied by a
packaged Free alternative to a non-free package before that non-free
package is eligible for exclusion from the Debian project?

Or is the entire issue of Free alternatives just a red herring?  Should
a package be kept in non-free as long as someone is willing to maintain
it there, regardless of how many users feel a Free alternative is
equal or superior to it?  If that is true, why do we tolerate the
removal of packages from non-free when they have security holes that we
are unwilling or unable to fix?  Aren't the users and the package
maintainer fit to determine that a security vulnerability is not a
serious enough issue to warrant the package's removal?

> > But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies
> > to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
> 
>   Yet again a failure of logic.

How is an inductively-grounded prediction a failure of logic?  Such an
argument can only fail through ostensive demonstration.  John Goerzen
has already done this.

>  You make som amny illogical leaps in the midst of your polemics it is
>  hard to even argue against them.

To my mind, you seem to be quite up to the task.  Well, at least if I
understand "argue" in the colloquial sense rather than the formal one,
which seems to be mode in which you prefer to conduct this discussion
anyway.

>  I think you are wrong; Ididn't say you are alone.

You have made it obvious that you don't *just* think I am wrong; you
have accused me of a great many other failings as well.  I do find
myself wondering where the stridency of your antipathy comes from.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   Our ignorance is God; what we
Debian GNU/Linux   |   know is science.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Robert Green Ingersoll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:29:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
> >> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)
> 
> > He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT.
> 
>   But it helps to smear up the mud to imply that I would misuse
>  my office, since my arguments run counter to his.

It apparently also helps to draw unfounded extrapolations and invalid
inferences from people's public observations of your techniques of
character assassination.

But, just for the sake of enlightenment, why *should* I expect you to
govern your passions as Project Secretary when you seem unwilling to do
so when speaking as a regular developer?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:31:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > > > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> > > If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> > > be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
> > > but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
> > > be developed, or new archives to be setup.
> > Sure, that could happen, but it's also possible that packages could be
> > removed from main abruptly and without any of these things. The GR
> > does not require this to happen, so you can blame the people
> > responsible if it happens and you don't like it, just like for
> > anything else.
> 
> If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*

There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
affect this. Decisions that are not part of the resolution have no
force, and a GR can't make technical decisions.

All that we can do is hope that the people in positions of
responsibility will behave responsibly, and replace them if they
don't.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:31:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > > > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> > > If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> > > be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
> > > but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
> > > be developed, or new archives to be setup.
> > Sure, that could happen, but it's also possible that packages could be
> > removed from main abruptly and without any of these things. The GR
> > does not require this to happen, so you can blame the people
> > responsible if it happens and you don't like it, just like for
> > anything else.
> 
> If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*

There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
affect this. Decisions that are not part of the resolution have no
force, and a GR can't make technical decisions.

All that we can do is hope that the people in positions of
responsibility will behave responsibly, and replace them if they
don't.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 03:13:56PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > >  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > >  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> > >  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> > >  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> > I remain concerned that this appears to make contrib violate the social
> > contract, but doesn't explicitly authorise its removal. If the social
> > contract is to be changed, it's best to make it clear what's going on,
> > so we don't have to make confusing semantic distinctions like we do at
> > the moment.
> I don't see why the same excuse that has always justified contrib will
> not continue to work ("not part of Debian").

It doesn't work now. It's confusing, and a waste of time having to keep
"clarifying" the issue. And it gets worse, since you our support for
contrib becomes entirely unjustified, since you can't just say "oh,
you have to read SC1 in the context of SC5".

> > > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> > If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> > be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
> > but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
> > be developed, or new archives to be setup.
> Sure, that could happen, but it's also possible that packages could be
> removed from main abruptly and without any of these things. The GR
> does not require this to happen, so you can blame the people
> responsible if it happens and you don't like it, just like for
> anything else.

If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 03:13:56PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > >  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > >  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> > >  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> > >  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> > I remain concerned that this appears to make contrib violate the social
> > contract, but doesn't explicitly authorise its removal. If the social
> > contract is to be changed, it's best to make it clear what's going on,
> > so we don't have to make confusing semantic distinctions like we do at
> > the moment.
> I don't see why the same excuse that has always justified contrib will
> not continue to work ("not part of Debian").

It doesn't work now. It's confusing, and a waste of time having to keep
"clarifying" the issue. And it gets worse, since you our support for
contrib becomes entirely unjustified, since you can't just say "oh,
you have to read SC1 in the context of SC5".

> > > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> > If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> > be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
> > but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
> > be developed, or new archives to be setup.
> Sure, that could happen, but it's also possible that packages could be
> removed from main abruptly and without any of these things. The GR
> does not require this to happen, so you can blame the people
> responsible if it happens and you don't like it, just like for
> anything else.

If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> >  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> >  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> >  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> 
> I remain concerned that this appears to make contrib violate the social
> contract, but doesn't explicitly authorise its removal. If the social
> contract is to be changed, it's best to make it clear what's going on,
> so we don't have to make confusing semantic distinctions like we do at
> the moment.

I don't see why the same excuse that has always justified contrib will
not continue to work ("not part of Debian").

> > The only thing vaguely resembling
> > a time constraint is that non-free is cut out of the next stable
> > release - but there should be nothing difficult about that. Testing
> > and unstable can be cleared out whenever we're ready.
> 
> The only concern I'd have would be that contrib might end up being
> mishandled.  If significant bits become uninstallable due to the lack
> of non-free, they'll be dropped, eg.

Significant bits of contrib ("anything that needs Sun java") are
already uninstallable due to their dependencies not being present in
non-free, and they haven't been dropped. So I don't find this very
worrying.

> > The fate of contrib is left undecided because there doesn't seem to be
> > any real objection to its presence, so there's no reason to force it
> > out with a GR. 
> 
> If that's the case, then the decision should be made to keep it.

I don't see any reason to write it into the social contract that it
should remain, any more than there is a reason to say "KDE will be
kept" or "xemacs will be kept". Debian servers routinely distribute
all kinds of things that aren't part of Debian (people, cvs, alioth,
etc), and they stay for as long as anybody cares to look after them. I
think that contrib should be handled in the same way.

> > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> 
> If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
> but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
> be developed, or new archives to be setup.

Sure, that could happen, but it's also possible that packages could be
removed from main abruptly and without any of these things. The GR
does not require this to happen, so you can blame the people
responsible if it happens and you don't like it, just like for
anything else.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---

I remain concerned that this appears to make contrib violate the social
contract, but doesn't explicitly authorise its removal. If the social
contract is to be changed, it's best to make it clear what's going on,
so we don't have to make confusing semantic distinctions like we do at
the moment.

> There are no time constraints. It is written on the assumption that
> anybody who has the power to block the removal of non-free via
> deliberate inaction (such as ftpmaster) will act in good faith, and
> deal with it in a reasonable manner. 

I don't believe there are any technical issues that would stand in the
way of implementing the proposal as written.

> The only thing vaguely resembling
> a time constraint is that non-free is cut out of the next stable
> release - but there should be nothing difficult about that. Testing
> and unstable can be cleared out whenever we're ready.

The only concern I'd have would be that contrib might end up being
mishandled.  If significant bits become uninstallable due to the lack
of non-free, they'll be dropped, eg.

> The fate of contrib is left undecided because there doesn't seem to be
> any real objection to its presence, so there's no reason to force it
> out with a GR. 

If that's the case, then the decision should be made to keep it.

Personally, given the social contract as amended by the proposed GR,
I'd object to the presence of contrib as being in violation of the
social contract.

> I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> timetables and transition plans as appropriate;

If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
be developed, or new archives to be setup.

The above should be taken as a prediction, not as an official statement
nor an ironclad promise. FYI, FWIW, etc.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Michael Banck]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.

Seconded.


Michael


pgpZAwzE5XWim.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> >  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> >  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> >  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> 
> I remain concerned that this appears to make contrib violate the social
> contract, but doesn't explicitly authorise its removal. If the social
> contract is to be changed, it's best to make it clear what's going on,
> so we don't have to make confusing semantic distinctions like we do at
> the moment.

I don't see why the same excuse that has always justified contrib will
not continue to work ("not part of Debian").

> > The only thing vaguely resembling
> > a time constraint is that non-free is cut out of the next stable
> > release - but there should be nothing difficult about that. Testing
> > and unstable can be cleared out whenever we're ready.
> 
> The only concern I'd have would be that contrib might end up being
> mishandled.  If significant bits become uninstallable due to the lack
> of non-free, they'll be dropped, eg.

Significant bits of contrib ("anything that needs Sun java") are
already uninstallable due to their dependencies not being present in
non-free, and they haven't been dropped. So I don't find this very
worrying.

> > The fate of contrib is left undecided because there doesn't seem to be
> > any real objection to its presence, so there's no reason to force it
> > out with a GR. 
> 
> If that's the case, then the decision should be made to keep it.

I don't see any reason to write it into the social contract that it
should remain, any more than there is a reason to say "KDE will be
kept" or "xemacs will be kept". Debian servers routinely distribute
all kinds of things that aren't part of Debian (people, cvs, alioth,
etc), and they stay for as long as anybody cares to look after them. I
think that contrib should be handled in the same way.

> > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> 
> If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
> but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
> be developed, or new archives to be setup.

Sure, that could happen, but it's also possible that packages could be
removed from main abruptly and without any of these things. The GR
does not require this to happen, so you can blame the people
responsible if it happens and you don't like it, just like for
anything else.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---

I remain concerned that this appears to make contrib violate the social
contract, but doesn't explicitly authorise its removal. If the social
contract is to be changed, it's best to make it clear what's going on,
so we don't have to make confusing semantic distinctions like we do at
the moment.

> There are no time constraints. It is written on the assumption that
> anybody who has the power to block the removal of non-free via
> deliberate inaction (such as ftpmaster) will act in good faith, and
> deal with it in a reasonable manner. 

I don't believe there are any technical issues that would stand in the
way of implementing the proposal as written.

> The only thing vaguely resembling
> a time constraint is that non-free is cut out of the next stable
> release - but there should be nothing difficult about that. Testing
> and unstable can be cleared out whenever we're ready.

The only concern I'd have would be that contrib might end up being
mishandled.  If significant bits become uninstallable due to the lack
of non-free, they'll be dropped, eg.

> The fate of contrib is left undecided because there doesn't seem to be
> any real objection to its presence, so there's no reason to force it
> out with a GR. 

If that's the case, then the decision should be made to keep it.

Personally, given the social contract as amended by the proposed GR,
I'd object to the presence of contrib as being in violation of the
social contract.

> I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> timetables and transition plans as appropriate;

If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
be amended. It might not happen within ten seconds, or even a week,
but I wouldn't expect it to be delayed in time for transition plans to
be developed, or new archives to be setup.

The above should be taken as a prediction, not as an official statement
nor an ironclad promise. FYI, FWIW, etc.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Tore Anderson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

* Andrew Suffield

 > ---8<---
 >  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
 >  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
 >  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
 >  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
 > ---8<---

  Seconded.

- -- 
Tore Anderson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAAU61/8x4SxA9OY8RAslXAJ9KYO6fGTD773N+z9rlTws1kyLFtgCfQJvW
GCioSKESLjL5SsMAgkRjMN4=
=EBmx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Michael Banck]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.

Seconded.


Michael


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Tore Anderson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

* Andrew Suffield

 > ---8<---
 >  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
 >  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
 >  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
 >  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
 > ---8<---

  Seconded.

- -- 
Tore Anderson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAAU61/8x4SxA9OY8RAslXAJ9KYO6fGTD773N+z9rlTws1kyLFtgCfQJvW
GCioSKESLjL5SsMAgkRjMN4=
=EBmx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Clint Adams]

> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---

Seconded.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Clint Adams]

> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---

Seconded.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Kyle McMartin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---
I second this as well. Thank you, Andrew.

Regards,
- -- 
Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1024D/191FCD8A - 331A 9468 C04D 3A76 5C56  BA68 7EB7 92DF 191F CD8A
2048R/F515317D -   68 A9 0D 28 1B DF 8D 42  0F CC AF 98 A8 D5 A4 04
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQFAAKUKfreS3xkfzYoRAhr0AJ44wVPKsyej88s83Ginw8/omoSHegCgg5nZ
gtWO1DXMQHIXam/hfIRsAdU=
=w/iv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Kyle McMartin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---
I second this as well. Thank you, Andrew.

Regards,
- -- 
Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1024D/191FCD8A - 331A 9468 C04D 3A76 5C56  BA68 7EB7 92DF 191F CD8A
2048R/F515317D -   68 A9 0D 28 1B DF 8D 42  0F CC AF 98 A8 D5 A4 04
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQFAAKUKfreS3xkfzYoRAhr0AJ44wVPKsyej88s83Ginw8/omoSHegCgg5nZ
gtWO1DXMQHIXam/hfIRsAdU=
=w/iv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---
> 
I second this.

It seems the most simple, clear and concise form of a non-free vote.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:17:56PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
> with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, namely to leave the actual
> packages on our servers for a while, but only accessible via nonfree.org
> and to remove every trace of non-free from debian.org from a user's
> perspective (I hope I have summarized well. The absence of discussion
> about this proposal so far seems to imply that people are generally not
> averse to it)
> 
> Any opinions on this (i.e. that those two proposals don't conflict)
> assertion?

I can't see why they would, much like a few other proposals along
similar lines. It doesn't even conflict with most of the other things
people have been suggesting.

I don't expect we'd maintain this for very *long*, though. And it all
depends on somebody caring enough about non-free to want to go to the
trouble of keeping it around (I predict that in this scenario, its
size would be greatly reduced).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---
> 
I second this.

It seems the most simple, clear and concise form of a non-free vote.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:17:56PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
> with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, namely to leave the actual
> packages on our servers for a while, but only accessible via nonfree.org
> and to remove every trace of non-free from debian.org from a user's
> perspective (I hope I have summarized well. The absence of discussion
> about this proposal so far seems to imply that people are generally not
> averse to it)
> 
> Any opinions on this (i.e. that those two proposals don't conflict)
> assertion?

I can't see why they would, much like a few other proposals along
similar lines. It doesn't even conflict with most of the other things
people have been suggesting.

I don't expect we'd maintain this for very *long*, though. And it all
depends on somebody caring enough about non-free to want to go to the
trouble of keeping it around (I predict that in this scenario, its
size would be greatly reduced).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Michael Banck]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
> with some extra text surrounding it]

Thanks Andrew for doing this.

> It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
> and/or understand my proposal. For reference, here it is (as it
> currently stands) repeated:
> 
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---
> 
> This has been very carefully designed and worded, every clause is
> operative, and the tenses matter. Futhermore, it is careful in what it
> does *not* say. It means precisely what it says, and it does not say
> anything that is not contained within the text; it is not difficult to
> understand.
> 
> Nothing in the proposed resolution says that an external agency will
> handle non-free; some people have suggested that it should. I
> considered this originally, but it would be meaningless. We cannot
> commit to the action of a non-Debian entity in a GR. If such a
> statement were present it would have no force, so its presence or
> absence should not alter the way that anybody votes.

Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, namely to leave the actual
packages on our servers for a while, but only accessible via nonfree.org
and to remove every trace of non-free from debian.org from a user's
perspective (I hope I have summarized well. The absence of discussion
about this proposal so far seems to imply that people are generally not
averse to it)

Any opinions on this (i.e. that those two proposals don't conflict)
assertion?


Michael

Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Michael Banck]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
> with some extra text surrounding it]

Thanks Andrew for doing this.

> It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
> and/or understand my proposal. For reference, here it is (as it
> currently stands) repeated:
> 
> ---8<---
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> ---8<---
> 
> This has been very carefully designed and worded, every clause is
> operative, and the tenses matter. Futhermore, it is careful in what it
> does *not* say. It means precisely what it says, and it does not say
> anything that is not contained within the text; it is not difficult to
> understand.
> 
> Nothing in the proposed resolution says that an external agency will
> handle non-free; some people have suggested that it should. I
> considered this originally, but it would be meaningless. We cannot
> commit to the action of a non-Debian entity in a GR. If such a
> statement were present it would have no force, so its presence or
> absence should not alter the way that anybody votes.

Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, namely to leave the actual
packages on our servers for a while, but only accessible via nonfree.org
and to remove every trace of non-free from debian.org from a user's
perspective (I hope I have summarized well. The absence of discussion
about this proposal so far seems to imply that people are generally not
averse to it)

Any opinions on this (i.e. that those two proposals don't conflict)
assertion?


Michael


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
> > > replacements for all software in non-free.  But that's a lot of work,
> > > and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free
> > > appear to me as "solutions looking for a problem" rather than anything
> > > I'd want to see implemented.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Removing non-free would:
> > 
> > 1) narrow the focus of our labor
> >a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to
> >   maintain the non-free section; or
> 
> The potential gains here are negligible.
> 
> It's kinda like eating a seven thousand calorie meal, then skipping
> the after dinner mint because you're on a diet.

"Eez only wafer-zin."

"Oh, all right then."



-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
> > > replacements for all software in non-free.  But that's a lot of work,
> > > and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free
> > > appear to me as "solutions looking for a problem" rather than anything
> > > I'd want to see implemented.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Removing non-free would:
> > 
> > 1) narrow the focus of our labor
> >a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to
> >   maintain the non-free section; or
> 
> The potential gains here are negligible.
> 
> It's kinda like eating a seven thousand calorie meal, then skipping
> the after dinner mint because you're on a diet.

"Eez only wafer-zin."

"Oh, all right then."



-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
>> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)

> He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT.

But it helps to smear up the mud to imply that I would misuse
 my office, since my arguments run counter to his.

manoj
-- 
The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out.  Computer
translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of
>> understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is
>> less appealing by the moment. This is like sayting that we already
>> had a file transfer mechanism in uuco, and thus uucp is a
>> replacement for http and every other file tranfer protocol that has
>> been subsequently invented.
>>
>> Your viewpoint would be better sereved if you did not press your
>> case to the stretching point, where you did not give the impression
>> that things that are not true replacements shall be trumpeted as
>> replacements just to get rid of the non-fre srtucture, whether or
>> not the users of the non-free programs are ill served or not. At
>> the very least, this is dishonest.

> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)

Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
 secretary, which would be inappropriate conduct?

> For what it's worth (probably not much to you, given the tone of
> your replies to my contributions to this discussion), I don't
> personally see the existence of replacements in main for software in
> non-free as bearing on the question of dropping non-free.  I feel

I know.  You tend to emphasize more on the free software part,
 and not the fact that users need to use non-free software part, which
 is the facet of Debian I think we are fast losing -- instead of
 trying to create the best, most useful, the universal operating
 system, we now wish to make ideologically pure toy systems -- whether
 or not real world applications would  work on it or not.

> this way mainly because the meaning of "replacement" is highly
> subjective, and bound to change from work to work.  It is also

Generallyy, though, one asks the _users_ of tools what an
 adequate replacement is, not some idle bystander with an axe to
 grind. Users of netscape have found alternatives -- though people
 have noted that there are some who would have coinsidered gopher an
 adequatre replacement.

> because I dislike arguments which use concepts like "necessary
> evil"; I don't think it buys us much to devalue non-free software on
> some principle, and then turn right around and say "but this is
> particular devalued thing is so important that we'll give it a
> pass".


> But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies
> to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.

Yet again a failure of logic.  You make som amny illogical
 leaps in the midst of your polemics it is hard to even argue against
 them. I think you are wrong; Ididn't say you are alone.

manoj
-- 
Intellect annuls Fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free. Ralph Waldo
Emerson
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
>> >> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
>> >> infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently
>> >> duplicated "somewhere else".
>>
>> > Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone
>> > else can duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about
>> > evidence,
>>
>> Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing,
>> and so are the people who put it together.

> That those people may be "special" and "amazing" doesn't necessarily
> mean they're "good", as we've seen from your replies to my messages
> to this list and others over the years.  I be must quite a liability
> to the Project.  :)

Yet another illfounded leap of illogic. When, pray, have I
 said anything about you, or other, being, or not being, good, and
 what exactly does it have to with the topic at hand?

manoj
-- 
Largest Number of Driving Test Failures By April 1970 Mrs. Miriam
Hargrave had failed her test thirty-nine times.  In the eight
preceding years she had received two hundred and twelve driving
lessons at a cost of L300.  She set the new record while driving
triumphantly through a set of red traffic lights in Wakefield,
Yorkshire.  Disappointingly, she passed at the fortieth attempt (3
August but eight years later she showed some of her old magic when she
was reported as saying that she still didn't like doing right-hand
turns. Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
>> conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.

> I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access
> to software that isn't actually in it.

Yes, your opposition is obviously stupid and ignorant, and
 liable to take such funny and idiotic stances.

This is getting to be quite droll.

manoj
-- 
Anger kills as surely as the other vices.
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah.  If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
>> the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove
>> non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
>> pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
>> fence.
>>
>> Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.

> I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject.  I

This GR is not a poll. However, a poll can easily be set up
 for the purpose -- and, if you think it is useful, I am sure you can
 conduct this (you have demonstrated this skillset already)

> personally am willing to concede that a few more people might vote
> in favor of removing non-free if a PDF hundreds of pages in length
> were prepared cataloging every piece of software in it, and putting
> forth a more comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has
> ever seen before.

I think you have lost your grasp of practicality, and you want
 us to vote for your proposals? You jump from a transition plan top "a
 PDF hundreds of pages in length and putting forth a more
 comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has ever seen
 before"?  And now you have reduced this from an effort to find a
 solution to electioneering and polemics. *sigh*. And I had hopes for
 this discussion.

> It challenges my credulity that dropping non-free would be anywhere
> close to as painful from a technical and infrastructural perspective
> as the transition from libc5 to libc6.

Apples and oranges.  Though creating the infrastructure, and
 paying for it, is unlikely to be trivial And duplicating the
 administration shall cost hours that may well be spent on Debian.

> It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously
> espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocates of a
> highly bureaucratized approach when it comes to dropping non-free.
> From my perspective, bureaucracy (i.e., documented procedures,
> clearly delineated powers) is justified by abuse of power (actual or
> potential).

Ah. Attack hypothetical opponents -- I am beginning to see
 this as a hallmark of your tactics.

> I don't understand how a GR, itself a democratic process, to remove
> non-free could be an abuse of power.  And I *definitely* don't see
> how a non-binding survey could be such.  Perhaps someone could
> explain it to me?

And ascribe idiotic arguments to your opponents, and then
 proceed to ridicule the opposition based on words you have put in
 their mouth.

Masterful.

manoj

-- 
If at first you don't succeed that is only to be expected--there is a
little bit of good even in the best of us. (No one is as good as he
thinks he is.)
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
>>
>> > You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so
>> > before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it
>> > seems your messages confused me.
>>
>> Oh, you don't have to. But you may get more votes if you do

> Not everything is an exercise in electioneering.

I see. So, anything beyond the original proposal, where you
 try to convince people that the proposal is a good idea, is merely a
 paltry exercise in electioneering?


In that case, you are doing a yoeman job of electioneering.

manoj
-- 
"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social
relevance, science fiction..." Art Spiegelman
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
>> for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
>> http).

> Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)

> Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
> University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and the
> gopher developers

> Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument
> that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative for HTTP (for
> at least some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be devoting my time to
> maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't believe that was, at
> least sometimes, the case.

You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained
 Gopher pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I
 have no use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users
 of your packages, derive value from that protocol. 

manoj
-- 
"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of
watching television." Cal Keegan
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
>> replacements for all software in non-free.  But that's a lot of
>> work, and I am not going to insist on that people write any
>> software.
>>
>> On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free
>> appear to me as "solutions looking for a problem" rather than
>> anything I'd want to see implemented.

> Removing non-free would:

> 1) narrow the focus of our labor
> a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to
>   maintain the non-free section; or

I think if I have to jump through hoops to put my packages out
 there, the anount of labour spent on non-free packages would increase

> b) explicitly acknowledging what is tacitly understood, that the
>   non-free section is already a second-class citizen that enjoys
>   little in the way of QA

Hmm. I guess I need t start doing more QA and porting work
 for my non-free packages, then.  I fail to see how it expands the
 hours that Debian gets of my time. 

> 2) improve our détente with other members of the Free Software
>community, particularly the Free Software Foundation; and

And reduce it with people writing GPL code for roguelike
 games, for one. And reduce it with users who need their OS to be more
 than an ideological toy. 

> 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system

Oh, I thought we already are :P

> I acknowledge that some people don't feel any of the above goals are
> worth pursuing -- but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

Just like somepeople couldn't care less about our users -- but
 that doesn't mean that everyone does.

manoj
-- 
I would have promised those terrorists a trip to Disneyland if it
would have gotten the hostages released.  I thank God they were
satisfied with the missiles and we didn't have to go to that
extreme. Oliver North
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
>> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)

> He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT.

But it helps to smear up the mud to imply that I would misuse
 my office, since my arguments run counter to his.

manoj
-- 
The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out.  Computer
translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of
>> understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is
>> less appealing by the moment. This is like sayting that we already
>> had a file transfer mechanism in uuco, and thus uucp is a
>> replacement for http and every other file tranfer protocol that has
>> been subsequently invented.
>>
>> Your viewpoint would be better sereved if you did not press your
>> case to the stretching point, where you did not give the impression
>> that things that are not true replacements shall be trumpeted as
>> replacements just to get rid of the non-fre srtucture, whether or
>> not the users of the non-free programs are ill served or not. At
>> the very least, this is dishonest.

> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest.  This promotes an
> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary?  :)

Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
 secretary, which would be inappropriate conduct?

> For what it's worth (probably not much to you, given the tone of
> your replies to my contributions to this discussion), I don't
> personally see the existence of replacements in main for software in
> non-free as bearing on the question of dropping non-free.  I feel

I know.  You tend to emphasize more on the free software part,
 and not the fact that users need to use non-free software part, which
 is the facet of Debian I think we are fast losing -- instead of
 trying to create the best, most useful, the universal operating
 system, we now wish to make ideologically pure toy systems -- whether
 or not real world applications would  work on it or not.

> this way mainly because the meaning of "replacement" is highly
> subjective, and bound to change from work to work.  It is also

Generallyy, though, one asks the _users_ of tools what an
 adequate replacement is, not some idle bystander with an axe to
 grind. Users of netscape have found alternatives -- though people
 have noted that there are some who would have coinsidered gopher an
 adequatre replacement.

> because I dislike arguments which use concepts like "necessary
> evil"; I don't think it buys us much to devalue non-free software on
> some principle, and then turn right around and say "but this is
> particular devalued thing is so important that we'll give it a
> pass".


> But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies
> to my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.

Yet again a failure of logic.  You make som amny illogical
 leaps in the midst of your polemics it is hard to even argue against
 them. I think you are wrong; Ididn't say you are alone.

manoj
-- 
Intellect annuls Fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free. Ralph Waldo
Emerson
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
>> >> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
>> >> infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently
>> >> duplicated "somewhere else".
>>
>> > Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone
>> > else can duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about
>> > evidence,
>>
>> Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing,
>> and so are the people who put it together.

> That those people may be "special" and "amazing" doesn't necessarily
> mean they're "good", as we've seen from your replies to my messages
> to this list and others over the years.  I be must quite a liability
> to the Project.  :)

Yet another illfounded leap of illogic. When, pray, have I
 said anything about you, or other, being, or not being, good, and
 what exactly does it have to with the topic at hand?

manoj
-- 
Largest Number of Driving Test Failures By April 1970 Mrs. Miriam
Hargrave had failed her test thirty-nine times.  In the eight
preceding years she had received two hundred and twelve driving
lessons at a cost of L300.  She set the new record while driving
triumphantly through a set of red traffic lights in Wakefield,
Yorkshire.  Disappointingly, she passed at the fortieth attempt (3
August but eight years later she showed some of her old magic when she
was reported as saying that she still didn't like doing right-hand
turns. Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
>> conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.

> I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access
> to software that isn't actually in it.

Yes, your opposition is obviously stupid and ignorant, and
 liable to take such funny and idiotic stances.

This is getting to be quite droll.

manoj
-- 
Anger kills as surely as the other vices.
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah.  If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
>> the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove
>> non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
>> pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
>> fence.
>>
>> Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.

> I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject.  I

This GR is not a poll. However, a poll can easily be set up
 for the purpose -- and, if you think it is useful, I am sure you can
 conduct this (you have demonstrated this skillset already)

> personally am willing to concede that a few more people might vote
> in favor of removing non-free if a PDF hundreds of pages in length
> were prepared cataloging every piece of software in it, and putting
> forth a more comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has
> ever seen before.

I think you have lost your grasp of practicality, and you want
 us to vote for your proposals? You jump from a transition plan top "a
 PDF hundreds of pages in length and putting forth a more
 comprehensive transition plan than any this Project has ever seen
 before"?  And now you have reduced this from an effort to find a
 solution to electioneering and polemics. *sigh*. And I had hopes for
 this discussion.

> It challenges my credulity that dropping non-free would be anywhere
> close to as painful from a technical and infrastructural perspective
> as the transition from libc5 to libc6.

Apples and oranges.  Though creating the infrastructure, and
 paying for it, is unlikely to be trivial And duplicating the
 administration shall cost hours that may well be spent on Debian.

> It is intriguing to me that some folks whom I have seen vigorously
> espousing ad-hoc problem solving suddenly become advocates of a
> highly bureaucratized approach when it comes to dropping non-free.
> From my perspective, bureaucracy (i.e., documented procedures,
> clearly delineated powers) is justified by abuse of power (actual or
> potential).

Ah. Attack hypothetical opponents -- I am beginning to see
 this as a hallmark of your tactics.

> I don't understand how a GR, itself a democratic process, to remove
> non-free could be an abuse of power.  And I *definitely* don't see
> how a non-binding survey could be such.  Perhaps someone could
> explain it to me?

And ascribe idiotic arguments to your opponents, and then
 proceed to ridicule the opposition based on words you have put in
 their mouth.

Masterful.

manoj

-- 
If at first you don't succeed that is only to be expected--there is a
little bit of good even in the best of us. (No one is as good as he
thinks he is.)
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
>>
>> > You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so
>> > before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it
>> > seems your messages confused me.
>>
>> Oh, you don't have to. But you may get more votes if you do

> Not everything is an exercise in electioneering.

I see. So, anything beyond the original proposal, where you
 try to convince people that the proposal is a good idea, is merely a
 paltry exercise in electioneering?


In that case, you are doing a yoeman job of electioneering.

manoj
-- 
"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social
relevance, science fiction..." Art Spiegelman
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
>> for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
>> http).

> Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)

> Gopher software distribution for UNIX Copyright (C) 1991-2000
> University of Minnesota Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and the
> gopher developers

> Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument
> that Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative for HTTP (for
> at least some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be devoting my time to
> maintaining Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't believe that was, at
> least sometimes, the case.

You make my point well. Personally, even though I maintained
 Gopher pages for my department for a couple of years back then, I
 have no use for them now -- but I acknowledge that you, and te users
 of your packages, derive value from that protocol. 

manoj
-- 
"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of
watching television." Cal Keegan
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
>> replacements for all software in non-free.  But that's a lot of
>> work, and I am not going to insist on that people write any
>> software.
>>
>> On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free
>> appear to me as "solutions looking for a problem" rather than
>> anything I'd want to see implemented.

> Removing non-free would:

> 1) narrow the focus of our labor
> a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to
>   maintain the non-free section; or

I think if I have to jump through hoops to put my packages out
 there, the anount of labour spent on non-free packages would increase

> b) explicitly acknowledging what is tacitly understood, that the
>   non-free section is already a second-class citizen that enjoys
>   little in the way of QA

Hmm. I guess I need t start doing more QA and porting work
 for my non-free packages, then.  I fail to see how it expands the
 hours that Debian gets of my time. 

> 2) improve our détente with other members of the Free Software
>community, particularly the Free Software Foundation; and

And reduce it with people writing GPL code for roguelike
 games, for one. And reduce it with users who need their OS to be more
 than an ideological toy. 

> 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system

Oh, I thought we already are :P

> I acknowledge that some people don't feel any of the above goals are
> worth pursuing -- but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

Just like somepeople couldn't care less about our users -- but
 that doesn't mean that everyone does.

manoj
-- 
I would have promised those terrorists a trip to Disneyland if it
would have gotten the hostages released.  I thank God they were
satisfied with the missiles and we didn't have to go to that
extreme. Oliver North
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: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:56:42PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> > in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access to
> > software that isn't actually in it.
> > 
> Depends whether the GFDL-in-main vote goes before or after the
> evict-non-free one :-)

I wasn't aware it was subject to a vote.  Historically, these
determinations have been made by rough consensus on debian-legal, but
the Release Manager has recently seen fit to overrule this process.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:46:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Fix what's broke, don't fix what's not broke.

Not a useful apothegm when people disagree about what's "broke".

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws
Debian GNU/Linux   |of science are condemned to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |rediscover some of the worst ones.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Harold Gordon


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:40:55PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
> > my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
> 
> I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be
> able to express them as succintly as you have.

Why, thank you.  "Succintness" is not a brush I'm often tarred with.[1]  :)

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00219.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common
Debian GNU/Linux   |people as true, by the wise as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
> > to them?
> 
> My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
> archive.  Is that not sufficient?

Ahh; my apologies.  Looks like I just read that too fast.  Thanks for
the informative reply.

-- John

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:56:42PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> > in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access to
> > software that isn't actually in it.
> > 
> Depends whether the GFDL-in-main vote goes before or after the
> evict-non-free one :-)

I wasn't aware it was subject to a vote.  Historically, these
determinations have been made by rough consensus on debian-legal, but
the Release Manager has recently seen fit to overrule this process.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:46:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Fix what's broke, don't fix what's not broke.

Not a useful apothegm when people disagree about what's "broke".

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws
Debian GNU/Linux   |of science are condemned to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |rediscover some of the worst ones.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Harold Gordon


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:40:55PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
> > my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
> 
> I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be
> able to express them as succintly as you have.

Why, thank you.  "Succintness" is not a brush I'm often tarred with.[1]  :)

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00219.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common
Debian GNU/Linux   |people as true, by the wise as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Joe Nahmias]

John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> > there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.  Here
> > are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
> > post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...):
> 
> Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
> to them?

My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
archive.  Is that not sufficient?

> I am confused by all the different proposals and "possibly proposals
> soon" proposals here, and am not quite certain just what it is that
> could be seconded.

Well, that's why I wrote the email: to lay out, as I see it, the
official actions that have been taken in these threads.  Again, if you
feel a post that I have not listed constitutes an official action,
please inform me so that I can correct my list.

Since my original post a few more have been added.  Following is the
complete list as I have it (same disclaimer applies):


1) GR proposed by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


2) GR seconded by Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


3) GR seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


4) GR modified by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


5) GR modification seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


6) GR modification seconded by Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


7) GR modification seconded by Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

8) Original GR seconded by John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Unfortunately, I cannot provide URLs for the last two since the
mailing-list archives are currently b0rked.

So, the modified proposal (which ends with the sentence "Clause 5 of the
social contract is repealed.") still needs two additional seconds to be
formally introduced and have the discussion period officially start.

Hope this helps,
--Joe

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
> > to them?
> 
> My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
> archive.  Is that not sufficient?

Ahh; my apologies.  Looks like I just read that too fast.  Thanks for
the informative reply.

-- John


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Joe Nahmias]

John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> > there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.  Here
> > are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
> > post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...):
> 
> Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
> to them?

My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
archive.  Is that not sufficient?

> I am confused by all the different proposals and "possibly proposals
> soon" proposals here, and am not quite certain just what it is that
> could be seconded.

Well, that's why I wrote the email: to lay out, as I see it, the
official actions that have been taken in these threads.  Again, if you
feel a post that I have not listed constitutes an official action,
please inform me so that I can correct my list.

Since my original post a few more have been added.  Following is the
complete list as I have it (same disclaimer applies):


1) GR proposed by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


2) GR seconded by Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


3) GR seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


4) GR modified by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


5) GR modification seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


6) GR modification seconded by Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


7) GR modification seconded by Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

8) Original GR seconded by John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Unfortunately, I cannot provide URLs for the last two since the
mailing-list archives are currently b0rked.

So, the modified proposal (which ends with the sentence "Clause 5 of the
social contract is repealed.") still needs two additional seconds to be
formally introduced and have the discussion period officially start.

Hope this helps,
--Joe


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
> 
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be
> disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active
> support of the non-free section.
> 
> 

Seconded.

-- John


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Chad Walstrom]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.

Seconded.

-- 
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.wookimus.net/
   assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
> 
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be
> disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active
> support of the non-free section.
> 
> 

Seconded.

-- John


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Chad Walstrom]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.

Seconded.

-- 
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.wookimus.net/
   assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.  Here
> are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
> post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...):

Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
to them?

I am confused by all the different proposals and "possibly proposals
soon" proposals here, and am not quite certain just what it is that
could be seconded.

-- John

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.  Here
> are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
> post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...):

Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
to them?

I am confused by all the different proposals and "possibly proposals
soon" proposals here, and am not quite certain just what it is that
could be seconded.

-- John


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Ah.  If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of
> >  support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually
> >  remove non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
> >  pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
> >  fence.
> > 
> > Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.
> 
> I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject.  I

Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
solve this following what the DDs really want to do.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Santiago Vila]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.

Seconded.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE//o/pd9Uuvj7yPNYRAkunAJ0ZKeKSc9FEkzZcUGTk38yCUCeKKQCeJDgM
gMWKMNg+DSn94E0thP4XULY=
=k/xH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Ah.  If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of
> >  support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually
> >  remove non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
> >  pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
> >  fence.
> > 
> > Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.
> 
> I think it would be useful to poll the developers on the subject.  I

Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
solve this following what the DDs really want to do.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Santiago Vila]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.

Seconded.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE//o/pd9Uuvj7yPNYRAkunAJ0ZKeKSc9FEkzZcUGTk38yCUCeKKQCeJDgM
gMWKMNg+DSn94E0thP4XULY=
=k/xH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> An excellent idea!  However, although the minimum discussion period has
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.

False.  The minimum discussion period hasn't started, so it can't have
been exceeded.

The minimum discussion period doesn't begin till after the proposal
is introduced.  The proposal is introduced when it gets enough seconds.

Since, apparently, reading the constitution to find this out for yourself
is a bit too hard, I'll quote it for you:

  A.1. Proposal

   The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
   sponsored, as required.

  A.1. Discussion and Amendment

1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed.
   Amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored
   according to the requirements for a new resolution, or directly by
   the proposer of the original resolution.
...
  A.2. Calling for a vote
   
1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
   a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
   elapsed.


It's mildly annoying that we've got two different A.1. sections, but
what they say is pretty clear.

I'm guessing, since you're not the first person to express exactly
this same wrong idea, that this is a fallout from some irc discussion,
or some such.

-- 
Raul

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> An excellent idea!  However, although the minimum discussion period has
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.

False.  The minimum discussion period hasn't started, so it can't have
been exceeded.

The minimum discussion period doesn't begin till after the proposal
is introduced.  The proposal is introduced when it gets enough seconds.

Since, apparently, reading the constitution to find this out for yourself
is a bit too hard, I'll quote it for you:

  A.1. Proposal

   The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
   sponsored, as required.

  A.1. Discussion and Amendment

1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed.
   Amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored
   according to the requirements for a new resolution, or directly by
   the proposer of the original resolution.
...
  A.2. Calling for a vote
   
1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
   a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
   elapsed.


It's mildly annoying that we've got two different A.1. sections, but
what they say is pretty clear.

I'm guessing, since you're not the first person to express exactly
this same wrong idea, that this is a fallout from some irc discussion,
or some such.

-- 
Raul


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Joe Nahmias]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?

An excellent idea!  However, although the minimum discussion period has
been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.  Here
are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...):

1) GR proposed by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


2) GR seconded by Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


3) GR seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


4) GR modified by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


5) GR modification seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


So, it would seem that the modified GR still needs four additional
seconds in order to be officially introduced and be eligible to be
called to a vote.


- --Joe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE//jOHKl23+OYWEqURAhtxAJ9CvdPg2tVJHd3PdLJ2aYu4gDWL+gCghJTN
+qvtqwvObFVoaU9/69Xe6lQ=
=++bZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Joe Nahmias]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?

An excellent idea!  However, although the minimum discussion period has
been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote.  Here
are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
post corrections, the secretary has final discretion, etc...):

1) GR proposed by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


2) GR seconded by Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


3) GR seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


4) GR modified by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


5) GR modification seconded by Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> available at


So, it would seem that the modified GR still needs four additional
seconds in order to be officially introduced and be eligible to be
called to a vote.


- --Joe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE//jOHKl23+OYWEqURAhtxAJ9CvdPg2tVJHd3PdLJ2aYu4gDWL+gCghJTN
+qvtqwvObFVoaU9/69Xe6lQ=
=++bZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?

I don't know about you, but I need to get myself non-production machine
set up before I can even test the installer.  [I did my last install
with the old boot floppies.]

And I'm not comfortable "fixing" something I can't test.

-- 
Raul

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system

> I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue.

> At the moment, it's "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out
> and shot."  [I'm relaying a sentiment I've had expressed to me from more
> than one person.]

> With your change, that could become "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should
> be taken out and shot.  But I hear they're really strict about what
> software they accept."

> Or consider something like "My ethernet card didn't work.  It turns out
> that Debian gave me a 2.2 kernel."

So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
can all get back to working on the sarge installer?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpIFAmdNxlwI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
> can all get back to working on the sarge installer?

I don't know about you, but I need to get myself non-production machine
set up before I can even test the installer.  [I did my last install
with the old boot floppies.]

And I'm not comfortable "fixing" something I can't test.

-- 
Raul


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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system

> I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue.

> At the moment, it's "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out
> and shot."  [I'm relaying a sentiment I've had expressed to me from more
> than one person.]

> With your change, that could become "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should
> be taken out and shot.  But I hear they're really strict about what
> software they accept."

> Or consider something like "My ethernet card didn't work.  It turns out
> that Debian gave me a 2.2 kernel."

So how about if we go ahead and get this thing moved to a vote, so we
can all get back to working on the sarge installer?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
> my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.

I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be
able to express them as succintly as you have.

-- John

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[John Goerzen]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>  migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
>  for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
>  http).

Ahh, you should know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)

Gopher software distribution for UNIX
Copyright (C) 1991-2000  University of Minnesota
Copyright (C) 2000-2002  John Goerzen and the gopher developers

Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument that
Gopher was, and even is, an adequate alternative for HTTP (for at least
some purposes).  And, I wouldn't be devoting my time to maintaining
Gopher and PyGopherd if I didn't believe that was, at least sometimes,
the case.

-- John

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Raul Miller]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
> > replacements for all software in non-free.  But that's a lot of work,
> > and I am not going to insist on that people write any software.
> > 
> > On the other hand, the recent proposals for getting rid of non-free
> > appear to me as "solutions looking for a problem" rather than anything
> > I'd want to see implemented.

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Removing non-free would:
> 
> 1) narrow the focus of our labor
>a) either by explicitly reducing the amount of work that is done to
>   maintain the non-free section; or

The potential gains here are negligible.

It's kinda like eating a seven thousand calorie meal, then skipping
the after dinner mint because you're on a diet.

>b) explicitly acknowledging what is tacitly understood, that the
>   non-free section is already a second-class citizen that enjoys
>   little in the way of QA

I don't see any potential gains here at all.  Enlighten me?

> 2) improve our détente with other members of the Free Software
>community, particularly the Free Software Foundation; and

I don't know what "improve our détente" means.  Enlighten me?

[Does that mean that we can be "holier than thou" because we're not
distributing their docs?  Or does that mean that we're now immune to
criticism because we've dropped some packages?  Clearly, I'm missing
the point.]

> 3) make us more coherent exemplars of a 100% Free operating system

I think the boot disks are a much more significant issue.

At the moment, it's "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should be taken out
and shot."  [I'm relaying a sentiment I've had expressed to me from more
than one person.]

With your change, that could become "Oh, yeah, debian -- dselect should
be taken out and shot.  But I hear they're really strict about what
software they accept."

Or consider something like "My ethernet card didn't work.  It turns out
that Debian gave me a 2.2 kernel."

To my knowledge, none of the programs in non-free would be installed
by default during a "task-*" install.  People have to go out of their
way to find those programs even if they've just included non-free in
sources.list.  That's what matters to most people.

Plus, when we do drop non-free, we can get a fair bit of publicity about
it, for all that it's a fairly minor number of packages.  It would be
really nice if that were publicity which showed us in a good light.

> (Whether people are likely to agree with 1a or 1b depends on how well
> they think the non-free section is maintained and kept up at present.)
> 
> I acknowledge that some people don't feel any of the above goals are
> worth pursuing -- but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

How about people who think those goals are worth pursuing, but that the
current effort makes things worse more than it makes things better.

-- 
Raul

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> > On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
> >> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
> >> infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently
> >> duplicated "somewhere else".
> 
> > Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else
> > can duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about evidence,
> 
>   Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and
>  amazing, and so are the people who put it together.

That those people may be "special" and "amazing" doesn't necessarily
mean they're "good", as we've seen from your replies to my messages to
this list and others over the years.  I be must quite a liability to the
Project.  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to conspiracy that
Debian GNU/Linux   | which can be adequately explained
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | by economics.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Scott James Remnant]

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions 
> > under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
> 
> I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access to
> software that isn't actually in it.
> 
Depends whether the GFDL-in-main vote goes before or after the
evict-non-free one :-)

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>  migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
>  for tome is like saying that gopher was an adequate alternative for
>  http).

Thanks for underscoring the subjectivity of such judgements.

Alternatively, you could explain to me why I should be wasting my time
with tome rather than nethack.  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   Extra territorium jus dicenti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   impune non paretur.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature