Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
> >long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> >themselves not happy with the compromise.
> >
> This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
> thingy. You can vote. I can vote. Ahhh, the privilege of The Great
> Debian Nation.

Where on earth did I suggest it was up to me alone?  Here I am,
participating in a discussion about an open proposal, which includes
"drop paragraph 5 of the SC", and I give my reasons why I think it
should be done, and you think I'm somehow arguing that it's up to me
alone?

Thomas

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
> >long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> >themselves not happy with the compromise.
> >
> This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
> thingy. You can vote. I can vote. Ahhh, the privilege of The Great
> Debian Nation.

Where on earth did I suggest it was up to me alone?  Here I am,
participating in a discussion about an open proposal, which includes
"drop paragraph 5 of the SC", and I give my reasons why I think it
should be done, and you think I'm somehow arguing that it's up to me
alone?

Thomas


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Adam Majer]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:


Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.

This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".
 

People can say, argue and believe whatever they want. We have a policy 
and a constitution that clears things up in most cases. But people can 
*still* argue, say and believe whatever they want (don't let me get 
started on the economy (or environment) and the way Republicans think it 
works. I know they are dead wrong. Most other sane people think they are 
dead wrong, but they can still believe, say and argue whatever they want :P



If the "get rid of non-free" resolution fails, then it will still
remain true that non-free is not part of the Debian system, and is
indeed not part of Debian.  So, Sven, Anthony, Bdale, will you join me
in correcting users who think that non-free is part of Debian?  Will
you commit to not saying any more that it is?  Will you not speak as
if the non-free packages ever were part of Debian?

 

I *will* say whatever the hell I want and I'm sure that Anthony will say 
whatever the hell he wants. This is kind of a right people have in a few 
countries.


Last time I checked, if someone wants to be sure of the "laws" of 
Debian, they can consult at least the constitution^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSocial 
Contract or the policy.



It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a
compromise position.  And that compromise has essentially all but
broken down.  At least the proposers of the resolution have the
honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just
fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like.

I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.
 

This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting thingy. You 
can vote. I can vote. Ahhh, the privilege of The Great Debian Nation.


- Adam

--
  Building your applications one byte at a time
  http://www.galacticasoftware.com

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Adam Majer]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".
 

People can say, argue and believe whatever they want. We have a policy 
and a constitution that clears things up in most cases. But people can 
*still* argue, say and believe whatever they want (don't let me get 
started on the economy (or environment) and the way Republicans think it 
works. I know they are dead wrong. Most other sane people think they are 
dead wrong, but they can still believe, say and argue whatever they want :P

If the "get rid of non-free" resolution fails, then it will still
remain true that non-free is not part of the Debian system, and is
indeed not part of Debian.  So, Sven, Anthony, Bdale, will you join me
in correcting users who think that non-free is part of Debian?  Will
you commit to not saying any more that it is?  Will you not speak as
if the non-free packages ever were part of Debian?
 

I *will* say whatever the hell I want and I'm sure that Anthony will say 
whatever the hell he wants. This is kind of a right people have in a few 
countries.

Last time I checked, if someone wants to be sure of the "laws" of 
Debian, they can consult at least the constitution^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSocial 
Contract or the policy.

It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a
compromise position.  And that compromise has essentially all but
broken down.  At least the proposers of the resolution have the
honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just
fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like.
I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.
 

This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting thingy. You 
can vote. I can vote. Ahhh, the privilege of The Great Debian Nation.

- Adam

--
  Building your applications one byte at a time
  http://www.galacticasoftware.com


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:42:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
> for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
> be DFSG-free.  I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
> non-free being part of Debian.  Yet he claimed to support the Social
   ^
   |
Debian what?

   Debian archives?
   Debian operating system?
   Debian free software?

Could you either:

[a] provide a url to the text in question,
[b] provide an adequate quote which I can search for,
or
[c] avoid non-factual statements?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Nathanael Nerode]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Anthony Towns  writes:
> 
>> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
>> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
>> wrong or right.
> 
> Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
> the current compromise in the social contract.  You said not too long
> ago on this very list that it's silly and pedantic to insist that
> non-free is not part of Debian.  Since that's the other half of the
> compromise, you seem to think it's over.

Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
be DFSG-free.  I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
non-free being part of Debian.  Yet he claimed to support the Social
Contract at least I think he did.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/  http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:42:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
> for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
> be DFSG-free.  I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
> non-free being part of Debian.  Yet he claimed to support the Social
   ^
   |
Debian what?

   Debian archives?
   Debian operating system?
   Debian free software?

Could you either:

[a] provide a url to the text in question,
[b] provide an adequate quote which I can search for,
or
[c] avoid non-factual statements?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Nathanael Nerode]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
>> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
>> wrong or right.
> 
> Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
> the current compromise in the social contract.  You said not too long
> ago on this very list that it's silly and pedantic to insist that
> non-free is not part of Debian.  Since that's the other half of the
> compromise, you seem to think it's over.

Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
be DFSG-free.  I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
non-free being part of Debian.  Yet he claimed to support the Social
Contract at least I think he did.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/  http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
> packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))

I'm on the GNU Latin translation team.  I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of discussion
about trying to find modern neo-latin word lists so that we can use
sensible Latin equivalents for computer terminology.

Thomas

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
> > > spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
> > > separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
> > > way to manage bug reports.  
> > 
> > Yeah, but just because you say something, it is not necessarily reality. 
> 
> You gotta actually say what's wrong with what I say.  Anything might
> be wrong, but merely pointing that out isn't a contribution.

I already said so. Even if you want to say that the time past on
packaging non-free stuff is not debian time, or that the time that will
be wasted in setting up non-free.org is not debian time, this is wrong,
since the persons doing this work do it in their volunteer time, and for
the same reasons they do the rest of their packaging work.

And so you know, i guess that this current discussion has taken me more
time this past month that i ever needed to work on the unicorn modem
driver all the time i have been maintaining it. ocaml in non-free took
more time, but it was there many years.

> > > In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
> > > maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.
> > 
> > Which is why it is best to minimize said time.
> 
> Sure, but is it's Debian's business?  My PhD work takes lots of time

Naturally it is. Do you really think we would care about our non-free
packages if we were not DD ? i doubt so since there are nice .rpm
packages available. And i sincerely doubt that your PhD work is in any
way comparable to that, unless you are tbm, naturally :))

> away from Debian.  But it doesn't follow that Debian should organize
> Latin translators for me so that I don't have to do it and could spend
> more time on Debian.

On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))

> > And naturally, it seems that most maintainers of non-free stuff are MIA
> > anyway, or don't care about the packages.
> 
> This is part of the problem, I think.  We should drop those packages;
> we should not have the same package-retention policy for Debian and
> for the non-free stuff.  The non-free stuff should be held to a tight
> standard.

Which is the same thing i have ever said, and was heavily insulted
because i said it by your co non-free removal proponents.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
> > spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
> > separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
> > way to manage bug reports.  
> 
> Yeah, but just because you say something, it is not necessarily reality. 

You gotta actually say what's wrong with what I say.  Anything might
be wrong, but merely pointing that out isn't a contribution.

> > In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
> > maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.
> 
> Which is why it is best to minimize said time.

Sure, but is it's Debian's business?  My PhD work takes lots of time
away from Debian.  But it doesn't follow that Debian should organize
Latin translators for me so that I don't have to do it and could spend
more time on Debian.

> And naturally, it seems that most maintainers of non-free stuff are MIA
> anyway, or don't care about the packages.

This is part of the problem, I think.  We should drop those packages;
we should not have the same package-retention policy for Debian and
for the non-free stuff.  The non-free stuff should be held to a tight
standard.

Thomas

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> > ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> > time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> > this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.
> 
> I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
> spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
> separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
> way to manage bug reports.  

Yeah, but just because you say something, it is not necessarily reality. 

> In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
> maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.

Which is why it is best to minimize said time.

> > I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
> > non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
> > disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
> > time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
> > though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
> > package by package basis).
> 
> Do you believe that only the maintainer should judge the case?  Would
> you agree to some set of standards to avoid having non-free packages
> which are unnecessary, but which the maintainer for whatever reason
> likes?

Naturally i would. The maintainer has the best interaction with
upstream, and is the best to judge over both the possibility of upstream
freeing the licence and the reality of free replacement, but i know that
some maintainers can be stubborn on those issues, but i guess the
technical commitee has already the power to override them on this.

And naturally, it seems that most maintainers of non-free stuff are MIA
anyway, or don't care about the packages.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.

I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
way to manage bug reports.  

In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.

> I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
> non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
> disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
> time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
> though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
> package by package basis).

Do you believe that only the maintainer should judge the case?  Would
you agree to some set of standards to avoid having non-free packages
which are unnecessary, but which the maintainer for whatever reason
likes?

Thomas

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > > a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > > wouldn't be complaining so much.
> > 
> > Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
> > whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
> > non-free will be real though, and a real pain.
> 
> It's not cosmetic, it's practical.  And it's hardly fictitious.
> 
> One of the two aims I want is to accomplish is to have this stuff no
> longer supported on Debian resources.  That's hardly cosmetic; it's a
> significant thing.  And it's hardly fictitious.

You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.

> > If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
> > to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
> > achieve that.
> 
> Of course I want to get rid of non-free software eventually, and I
> think the mission of Debian is a good way to make progress towards
> that goal.  I believe that this resolution will contribute, and that
> the coddling of non-free software has *never* helped in the production
> of free software.

Unless said software becomes free.

I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
package by package basis).

> > Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.
> 
> I do care about your experience, but I disagree with the lessons you
> draw from it.  You are dishonest when you (continually) tell me what I
> care about, despite my asking you not to guess, and despite my having
> said so a number of times.

Err, sorry, maybe i should not say care, but you chose, in your
communication to me, to clearly ignore that experience, and to make as
if it did not exist, so what am i supposed to conclude ? 

And on what basis do you base yourself to disagree with those lessons ? 

> > Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
> > emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.
> 
> Sure.  When we must use non-free software to develop free software,
> it's ok to do so.  But the FSF never distributed that non-free
> software we were using, we didn't help support and develop it as part
> of our project, and we dropped it as soon as we possibly could.

Except for GFDLed documentation, but let's not go into that one flamewar,
at least for now :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
> packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))

I'm on the GNU Latin translation team.  I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of discussion
about trying to find modern neo-latin word lists so that we can use
sensible Latin equivalents for computer terminology.

Thomas


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
> > > spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
> > > separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
> > > way to manage bug reports.  
> > 
> > Yeah, but just because you say something, it is not necessarily reality. 
> 
> You gotta actually say what's wrong with what I say.  Anything might
> be wrong, but merely pointing that out isn't a contribution.

I already said so. Even if you want to say that the time past on
packaging non-free stuff is not debian time, or that the time that will
be wasted in setting up non-free.org is not debian time, this is wrong,
since the persons doing this work do it in their volunteer time, and for
the same reasons they do the rest of their packaging work.

And so you know, i guess that this current discussion has taken me more
time this past month that i ever needed to work on the unicorn modem
driver all the time i have been maintaining it. ocaml in non-free took
more time, but it was there many years.

> > > In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
> > > maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.
> > 
> > Which is why it is best to minimize said time.
> 
> Sure, but is it's Debian's business?  My PhD work takes lots of time

Naturally it is. Do you really think we would care about our non-free
packages if we were not DD ? i doubt so since there are nice .rpm
packages available. And i sincerely doubt that your PhD work is in any
way comparable to that, unless you are tbm, naturally :))

> away from Debian.  But it doesn't follow that Debian should organize
> Latin translators for me so that I don't have to do it and could spend
> more time on Debian.

On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))

> > And naturally, it seems that most maintainers of non-free stuff are MIA
> > anyway, or don't care about the packages.
> 
> This is part of the problem, I think.  We should drop those packages;
> we should not have the same package-retention policy for Debian and
> for the non-free stuff.  The non-free stuff should be held to a tight
> standard.

Which is the same thing i have ever said, and was heavily insulted
because i said it by your co non-free removal proponents.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
> > spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
> > separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
> > way to manage bug reports.  
> 
> Yeah, but just because you say something, it is not necessarily reality. 

You gotta actually say what's wrong with what I say.  Anything might
be wrong, but merely pointing that out isn't a contribution.

> > In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
> > maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.
> 
> Which is why it is best to minimize said time.

Sure, but is it's Debian's business?  My PhD work takes lots of time
away from Debian.  But it doesn't follow that Debian should organize
Latin translators for me so that I don't have to do it and could spend
more time on Debian.

> And naturally, it seems that most maintainers of non-free stuff are MIA
> anyway, or don't care about the packages.

This is part of the problem, I think.  We should drop those packages;
we should not have the same package-retention policy for Debian and
for the non-free stuff.  The non-free stuff should be held to a tight
standard.

Thomas


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> > ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> > time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> > this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.
> 
> I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
> spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
> separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
> way to manage bug reports.  

Yeah, but just because you say something, it is not necessarily reality. 

> In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
> maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.

Which is why it is best to minimize said time.

> > I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
> > non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
> > disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
> > time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
> > though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
> > package by package basis).
> 
> Do you believe that only the maintainer should judge the case?  Would
> you agree to some set of standards to avoid having non-free packages
> which are unnecessary, but which the maintainer for whatever reason
> likes?

Naturally i would. The maintainer has the best interaction with
upstream, and is the best to judge over both the possibility of upstream
freeing the licence and the reality of free replacement, but i know that
some maintainers can be stubborn on those issues, but i guess the
technical commitee has already the power to override them on this.

And naturally, it seems that most maintainers of non-free stuff are MIA
anyway, or don't care about the packages.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.

I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers.  They can
spend that time or not.  Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories.  The BTS is a help, but not the only
way to manage bug reports.  

In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian.  Time spent
maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.

> I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
> non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
> disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
> time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
> though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
> package by package basis).

Do you believe that only the maintainer should judge the case?  Would
you agree to some set of standards to avoid having non-free packages
which are unnecessary, but which the maintainer for whatever reason
likes?

Thomas


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > > a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > > wouldn't be complaining so much.
> > 
> > Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
> > whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
> > non-free will be real though, and a real pain.
> 
> It's not cosmetic, it's practical.  And it's hardly fictitious.
> 
> One of the two aims I want is to accomplish is to have this stuff no
> longer supported on Debian resources.  That's hardly cosmetic; it's a
> significant thing.  And it's hardly fictitious.

You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.

> > If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
> > to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
> > achieve that.
> 
> Of course I want to get rid of non-free software eventually, and I
> think the mission of Debian is a good way to make progress towards
> that goal.  I believe that this resolution will contribute, and that
> the coddling of non-free software has *never* helped in the production
> of free software.

Unless said software becomes free.

I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
package by package basis).

> > Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.
> 
> I do care about your experience, but I disagree with the lessons you
> draw from it.  You are dishonest when you (continually) tell me what I
> care about, despite my asking you not to guess, and despite my having
> said so a number of times.

Err, sorry, maybe i should not say care, but you chose, in your
communication to me, to clearly ignore that experience, and to make as
if it did not exist, so what am i supposed to conclude ? 

And on what basis do you base yourself to disagree with those lessons ? 

> > Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
> > emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.
> 
> Sure.  When we must use non-free software to develop free software,
> it's ok to do so.  But the FSF never distributed that non-free
> software we were using, we didn't help support and develop it as part
> of our project, and we dropped it as soon as we possibly could.

Except for GFDLed documentation, but let's not go into that one flamewar,
at least for now :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > wouldn't be complaining so much.
> 
> Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
> whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
> non-free will be real though, and a real pain.

It's not cosmetic, it's practical.  And it's hardly fictitious.

One of the two aims I want is to accomplish is to have this stuff no
longer supported on Debian resources.  That's hardly cosmetic; it's a
significant thing.  And it's hardly fictitious.

> If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
> to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
> achieve that.

Of course I want to get rid of non-free software eventually, and I
think the mission of Debian is a good way to make progress towards
that goal.  I believe that this resolution will contribute, and that
the coddling of non-free software has *never* helped in the production
of free software.

> Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.

I do care about your experience, but I disagree with the lessons you
draw from it.  You are dishonest when you (continually) tell me what I
care about, despite my asking you not to guess, and despite my having
said so a number of times.

> Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
> emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.

Sure.  When we must use non-free software to develop free software,
it's ok to do so.  But the FSF never distributed that non-free
software we were using, we didn't help support and develop it as part
of our project, and we dropped it as soon as we possibly could.


Thomas

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> > section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> > non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> > debian/main.
> 
> But you have also referred to non-free as part of Debian.

As part of the debian infrastructure and also at least partially, of the
debian project, but not of the debian distribution.

> > Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
> > be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
> > by a non-free.org DNS magic? 
> 
> No.  That would be an improvement, but it would not be enough.  There
> is also the BTS, and the reporting of it on the web pages which tie it
> closely to the distribution, etc.

Ok.

> > This would cause the less burden to our ressources (ressources as in
> > volunteer time donation, what other ressource do we have), while
> > achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so important to you of not
> > having non-free programs visibly related to the debian project. If
> > not, could you please come up with a sane rationale on why not ?
> 
> My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> wouldn't be complaining so much.

Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
non-free will be real though, and a real pain.

If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
achieve that.

> > Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
> > non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
> > same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
> > non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
> > strengthening free alternatives ?
> 
> These are not alternatives.  Both are important.  Distributing
> non-free does nothing to help either.

Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.

> > And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
> > proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
> > may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
> > archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
> > external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
> > (also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.
> 
> Puhleez.
> 
> > Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
> > do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
> > individual hardware components of your computer ? 
> 
> Those hardware components, and the BIOS, are not part of Debian.  My
> goal was never to make Debian run without any non-free software in the
> room.  It's to make Debian 100% Free Software.

Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.

> > And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
> > you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
> > be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
> > non-free you have no use for ? 
> 
> If you want to provide easy access, go to it.

And you want to pull it from me.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > wouldn't be complaining so much.
> 
> Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
> whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
> non-free will be real though, and a real pain.

It's not cosmetic, it's practical.  And it's hardly fictitious.

One of the two aims I want is to accomplish is to have this stuff no
longer supported on Debian resources.  That's hardly cosmetic; it's a
significant thing.  And it's hardly fictitious.

> If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
> to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
> achieve that.

Of course I want to get rid of non-free software eventually, and I
think the mission of Debian is a good way to make progress towards
that goal.  I believe that this resolution will contribute, and that
the coddling of non-free software has *never* helped in the production
of free software.

> Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.

I do care about your experience, but I disagree with the lessons you
draw from it.  You are dishonest when you (continually) tell me what I
care about, despite my asking you not to guess, and despite my having
said so a number of times.

> Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
> emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.

Sure.  When we must use non-free software to develop free software,
it's ok to do so.  But the FSF never distributed that non-free
software we were using, we didn't help support and develop it as part
of our project, and we dropped it as soon as we possibly could.


Thomas


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> > section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> > non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> > debian/main.
> 
> But you have also referred to non-free as part of Debian.

As part of the debian infrastructure and also at least partially, of the
debian project, but not of the debian distribution.

> > Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
> > be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
> > by a non-free.org DNS magic? 
> 
> No.  That would be an improvement, but it would not be enough.  There
> is also the BTS, and the reporting of it on the web pages which tie it
> closely to the distribution, etc.

Ok.

> > This would cause the less burden to our ressources (ressources as in
> > volunteer time donation, what other ressource do we have), while
> > achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so important to you of not
> > having non-free programs visibly related to the debian project. If
> > not, could you please come up with a sane rationale on why not ?
> 
> My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> wouldn't be complaining so much.

Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
whatever you want to call it. The effect on users and packagers of
non-free will be real though, and a real pain.

If at least you would have the excuse of wanting to use this as a basis
to get rid of non-free software really, but you don't even want to
achieve that.

> > Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
> > non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
> > same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
> > non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
> > strengthening free alternatives ?
> 
> These are not alternatives.  Both are important.  Distributing
> non-free does nothing to help either.

Yeah. My experience tells me the contrary. But you don't care about it.

> > And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
> > proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
> > may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
> > archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
> > external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
> > (also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.
> 
> Puhleez.
> 
> > Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
> > do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
> > individual hardware components of your computer ? 
> 
> Those hardware components, and the BIOS, are not part of Debian.  My
> goal was never to make Debian run without any non-free software in the
> room.  It's to make Debian 100% Free Software.

Ah, and 10, 20 years ago, we were starting to get free software, like
emacs or the gcc compiler, but running on non-free OSes.

> > And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
> > you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
> > be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
> > non-free you have no use for ? 
> 
> If you want to provide easy access, go to it.

And you want to pull it from me.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> debian/main.

But you have also referred to non-free as part of Debian.

> Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
> be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
> by a non-free.org DNS magic? 

No.  That would be an improvement, but it would not be enough.  There
is also the BTS, and the reporting of it on the web pages which tie it
closely to the distribution, etc.

> This would cause the less burden to our ressources (ressources as in
> volunteer time donation, what other ressource do we have), while
> achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so important to you of not
> having non-free programs visibly related to the debian project. If
> not, could you please come up with a sane rationale on why not ?

My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.

> Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
> non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
> same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
> non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
> strengthening free alternatives ?

These are not alternatives.  Both are important.  Distributing
non-free does nothing to help either.

> And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
> proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
> may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
> archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
> external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
> (also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.

Puhleez.

> Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
> do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
> individual hardware components of your computer ? 

Those hardware components, and the BIOS, are not part of Debian.  My
goal was never to make Debian run without any non-free software in the
room.  It's to make Debian 100% Free Software.

> And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
> you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
> be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
> non-free you have no use for ? 

If you want to provide easy access, go to it.

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
> wrong or right.

Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
the current compromise in the social contract.  You said not too long
ago on this very list that it's silly and pedantic to insist that
non-free is not part of Debian.  Since that's the other half of the
compromise, you seem to think it's over.

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> debian/main.

But you have also referred to non-free as part of Debian.

> Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
> be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
> by a non-free.org DNS magic? 

No.  That would be an improvement, but it would not be enough.  There
is also the BTS, and the reporting of it on the web pages which tie it
closely to the distribution, etc.

> This would cause the less burden to our ressources (ressources as in
> volunteer time donation, what other ressource do we have), while
> achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so important to you of not
> having non-free programs visibly related to the debian project. If
> not, could you please come up with a sane rationale on why not ?

My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project.  If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.

> Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
> non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
> same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
> non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
> strengthening free alternatives ?

These are not alternatives.  Both are important.  Distributing
non-free does nothing to help either.

> And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
> proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
> may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
> archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
> external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
> (also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.

Puhleez.

> Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
> do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
> individual hardware components of your computer ? 

Those hardware components, and the BIOS, are not part of Debian.  My
goal was never to make Debian run without any non-free software in the
room.  It's to make Debian 100% Free Software.

> And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
> you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
> be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
> non-free you have no use for ? 

If you want to provide easy access, go to it.


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
> wrong or right.

Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
the current compromise in the social contract.  You said not too long
ago on this very list that it's silly and pedantic to insist that
non-free is not part of Debian.  Since that's the other half of the
compromise, you seem to think it's over.


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

Nonsensical "arguments" (was: Why Anthony Towns is wrong)

[Raul Miller]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.

In my opinion, Debian is an adjective, not a noun.   So there's an
implicit or explicit noun associated with the word in phrases like
"part of Debian" -- when it's implicit, you have to determine that noun
from context.  Example nouns include:

  archive
  base system
  cdrom
  developer
  free software guidelines
  infrastructure
  mailing lists
  main archive
  ftp mirror
  package
  private keys
  project
  sarge
  social contract

> This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
> which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
> Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".

Near as I can tell, you have disregarded the basic principles of logic,
starting with your subject line which doesn't present a logical argument
but instead presents a personal attack.

Also, you've seemingly ignored related provisions in paragraphs 1 and 4
(and, for that matter, 3).

-- 
Raul

Nonsensical "arguments" (was: Why Anthony Towns is wrong)

[Raul Miller]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.

In my opinion, Debian is an adjective, not a noun.   So there's an
implicit or explicit noun associated with the word in phrases like
"part of Debian" -- when it's implicit, you have to determine that noun
from context.  Example nouns include:

  archive
  base system
  cdrom
  developer
  free software guidelines
  infrastructure
  mailing lists
  main archive
  ftp mirror
  package
  private keys
  project
  sarge
  social contract

> This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
> which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
> Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".

Near as I can tell, you have disregarded the basic principles of logic,
starting with your subject line which doesn't present a logical argument
but instead presents a personal attack.

Also, you've seemingly ignored related provisions in paragraphs 1 and 4
(and, for that matter, 3).

-- 
Raul


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
> 
> This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
> which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
> Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".
> 
> Anthony and Sven and others have recently found it very hard to
> preserve this illusion, because they themselves speak of "removing
> non-free from Debian", which strongly suggests that they have
> essentially decided to ignore what the Social Contract section 5 says
> about this.

Thomas. You seem to have forgotten what i replied to this.

non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
debian/main.

Both the debian distribution and the debian infrastructure are part of
the debian project though, as are a splattering of other ressources we
didn't mention. I also believe that the time that is going to be lost by
debian developers to set up this alternative non-free.org you are
proposing is also part of the debian project.

Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
by a non-free.org DNS magic ? This would cause the less burden to our
ressources (ressources as in volunteer time donation, what other
ressource do we have), while achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so
important to you of not having non-free programs visibly related to the
debian project. If not, could you please come up with a sane rationale
on why not ? 

Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
strengthening free alternatives ?

And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
(also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.

> It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a
> compromise position.  And that compromise has essentially all but
> broken down.  At least the proposers of the resolution have the
> honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just
> fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like.

Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
individual hardware components of your computer ? 

> I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
> long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> themselves not happy with the compromise.

And tell me, when exactly did you stop using netscape and were able to
use a free replacement ? netscape or word or acrobat reader ? 

And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
non-free you have no use for ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
> 
> This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
> which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
> Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".
> 
> Anthony and Sven and others have recently found it very hard to
> preserve this illusion, because they themselves speak of "removing
> non-free from Debian", which strongly suggests that they have
> essentially decided to ignore what the Social Contract section 5 says
> about this.

Thomas. You seem to have forgotten what i replied to this.

non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
debian/main.

Both the debian distribution and the debian infrastructure are part of
the debian project though, as are a splattering of other ressources we
didn't mention. I also believe that the time that is going to be lost by
debian developers to set up this alternative non-free.org you are
proposing is also part of the debian project.

Thomas, would you be satisfied if the non-free archive was continued to
be kept on the debian servers and infrastructure, but only accessible
by a non-free.org DNS magic ? This would cause the less burden to our
ressources (ressources as in volunteer time donation, what other
ressource do we have), while achieving the cosmetic goal which seems so
important to you of not having non-free programs visibly related to the
debian project. If not, could you please come up with a sane rationale
on why not ? 

Also, i would like to know what you find more important. That we move
non-free to another server network not related to debian, even if the
same debian maintainers work on it, or working to make the individual
non-free package not needed anymore, either by freeing them, or by
strengthening free alternatives ?

And finally, i would like to know if you (or other non-free removal
proponents) may be part of a corporation or other organisation, which
may have a vested interest in maintaining an alternative non-free.org
archive, and how you expect to guarantee that the creation of such an
external entity may not divert ressources from the debian distribution
(also called debian/main) to this external fork we have no control over.

> It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a
> compromise position.  And that compromise has essentially all but
> broken down.  At least the proposers of the resolution have the
> honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just
> fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like.

Has it ? Please tell me, which hardware plateform are you running, and
do you have access to a free licenced copy of your bios code, and of the
individual hardware components of your computer ? 

> I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
> long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> themselves not happy with the compromise.

And tell me, when exactly did you stop using netscape and were able to
use a free replacement ? netscape or word or acrobat reader ? 

And do you believe the same courtesy the debian project as a whole gave
you in providing you easy access to these pieces of software might not
be extended to those who right now still benefit from packages in
non-free you have no use for ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?

While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
wrong or right.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.

This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".

Anthony and Sven and others have recently found it very hard to
preserve this illusion, because they themselves speak of "removing
non-free from Debian", which strongly suggests that they have
essentially decided to ignore what the Social Contract section 5 says
about this.

So which is it?  Are you going to start speaking more precisely, and
stop acting as if it's pedantic to insist that non-free is not now
part of Debian?

If the "get rid of non-free" resolution fails, then it will still
remain true that non-free is not part of the Debian system, and is
indeed not part of Debian.  So, Sven, Anthony, Bdale, will you join me
in correcting users who think that non-free is part of Debian?  Will
you commit to not saying any more that it is?  Will you not speak as
if the non-free packages ever were part of Debian?

It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a
compromise position.  And that compromise has essentially all but
broken down.  At least the proposers of the resolution have the
honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just
fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like.

I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.

Thomas

Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?

While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
wrong or right.

Cheers,
aj

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

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Why Anthony Towns is wrong

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.

This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free archives are "not part of the
Debian system" and that "non-free software isn't a part of Debian".

Anthony and Sven and others have recently found it very hard to
preserve this illusion, because they themselves speak of "removing
non-free from Debian", which strongly suggests that they have
essentially decided to ignore what the Social Contract section 5 says
about this.

So which is it?  Are you going to start speaking more precisely, and
stop acting as if it's pedantic to insist that non-free is not now
part of Debian?

If the "get rid of non-free" resolution fails, then it will still
remain true that non-free is not part of the Debian system, and is
indeed not part of Debian.  So, Sven, Anthony, Bdale, will you join me
in correcting users who think that non-free is part of Debian?  Will
you commit to not saying any more that it is?  Will you not speak as
if the non-free packages ever were part of Debian?

It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a
compromise position.  And that compromise has essentially all but
broken down.  At least the proposers of the resolution have the
honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just
fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like.

I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely.  It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.

Thomas


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