|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: David PaleinoDavid Paleino Date: Sep 15, 2008 09:20
(sorry for those of you receiving this twice: I mistakenly sent it to -devel!)
I know I'm reviving a long-time discussion, but here is a thought I just had.
On debian-italian@ there's a thread [1] with people sponsoring gNewSense,
goBuntu and the such, claiming they're "real free software", and others that
say that "a world without non-free wouldn't be possible, at this historical
moment".
I've replied linking to GR "Handling source-less firmware in the Linux
kernel" (2006/07) [2] and the Social Contract [3], citing the winning
resolution and point 5 of the Social Contract:
---8<---
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
|
| Show full article (2.77Kb) |
|
| | 66 Comments |
|
|
Author: Don ArmstrongDon Armstrong Date: Sep 15, 2008 10:20
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we *SUPPORT* *THEIR*
> *USE* and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
> tracking system and mailing lists)."
We're providing support for the use of non-free works which we
distribute in non-free in the part of our mailing lists, bug tracking
system, and archive. That is to say, infrastructure, packaging, and
the corresponding human investment that goes along with them. This
doesn't mean that we support the use of non-free when there are free
alternatives available. We aren't supporting the use of non-free
packages over equivalent free packages. [I'd like to think that we'd
consider it a bug to distribute a non-free package which has a
total-functionality replacement free packages (or perhaps even
majority-functionality replacement).]
Don Armstrong
--
"The trouble with you, Ibid" he said, "is that you think you're the
biggest bloody authority on everything"
-- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p146
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: David PaleinoDavid Paleino Date: Sep 15, 2008 10:30
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:11:03 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
>> "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we *SUPPORT*
>> *THEIR* *USE* and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our
>> bug tracking system and mailing lists)."
>
> We're providing support for the use of non-free works which we
> distribute in non-free in the part of our mailing lists, bug tracking
> system, and archive. That is to say, infrastructure, packaging, and
> the corresponding human investment that goes along with them.
Probably what I cited above might have a better wording. In fact, it seems like
Debian is "supporting the use of non-free software". We could use something
like:
"Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
users and provide infrastructure for non-free packages [..]."
(I'm not a native speaker, that might be better worded)
Would that be clearer?
|
| Show full article (1.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Florian WeimerFlorian Weimer Date: Sep 15, 2008 10:40
* David Paleino:
> Thus, are we supporting non-free?
In the sense that the project uses its resources to maintain and
distribute non-free packages? Sure.
In the sense that non-free packages receive security support, release
management, and so on? No.
> I've always believed (read it somewhere, maybe a GR, or some thread on -devel,
> or just inferred from the above point, can't really say what, sorry) that we're
> just providing *some* infrastructure to non-free (such as BTS and lists.d.o),
> but not others (like buildds, for example, or security updates). All this just
> to support *our* *users*, not non-free itself. Am I wrong?
I think it boils down to what you mean by "support". non-free is
certainly a second-class citizen in the Debian Republic (perhaps even
less).
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MJ RayMJ Ray Date: Sep 15, 2008 10:50
David Paleino gmail.com> wrote:> "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
> users and provide infrastructure for non-free packages [..]."
>
> (I'm not a native speaker, that might be better worded)
How about "... we provide support infrastructure for non-free packages
[..]."?
> Would that be clearer?
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David PaleinoDavid Paleino Date: Sep 15, 2008 11:00
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:40:59 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> David Paleino gmail.com> wrote:>> "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
>> users and provide infrastructure for non-free packages [..]."
>>
>> (I'm not a native speaker, that might be better worded)
>
> How about "... we provide support infrastructure for non-free packages
> [..]."?
That's better :)
>> Would that be clearer?
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Giacomo CatenazziGiacomo Catenazzi Date: Sep 15, 2008 11:40
MJ Ray wrote:
> David Paleino gmail.com> wrote:>> "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
>> users and provide infrastructure for non-free packages [..]."
>>
>> (I'm not a native speaker, that might be better worded)
>
> How about "... we provide support infrastructure for non-free packages
> [..]."?
>
>> Would that be clearer?
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: Noah MeyerhansNoah Meyerhans Date: Sep 15, 2008 12:00
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 08:25:53PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
>
> I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
> the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
> infrastructure to handle the machines.
Is it really worth it? Are we really losing developers or users by not
being endorsed by the FSF?
noah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
|
| Show full article (1.07Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Thijs KinkhorstThijs Kinkhorst Date: Sep 15, 2008 12:10
On Monday 15 September 2008 20:33, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
>>> If anyone wants to try to deal with these cans of worms positively,
>>> I'll support them, but I'm not leading the charge because it doesn't
>>> bother me as much, as long as debian is 100%% free software.
>>
>> I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
>> the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
>> infrastructure to handle the machines. >
> Is it really worth it? Â Are we really losing developers or users by not
> being endorsed by the FSF?
Right, I thought that the whole idea was to support it with the same
infrastructure we already have. The marginal cost of having the existing
infrastructure handle the few extra non-free packages is very low, in
contrast with having to keep up two separate infrastructures.
Thijs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Alexander Reichle-SchmehlAlexander Reichle-Schmehl Date: Sep 15, 2008 12:10
Hi!
Thijs Kinkhorst schrieb:
[ sepperate infrastrucure for non-free ]
> Right, I thought that the whole idea was to support it with the same
> infrastructure we already have. The marginal cost of having the existing
> infrastructure handle the few extra non-free packages is very low, in
> contrast with having to keep up two separate infrastructures.
Has anyone ever investigated, if it would be possible to use the same
physical infrastructure serving two different instances / aliases /
whatever for free and non-free software?
Best regards,
Alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEUEARECAAYFAkjOsgUACgkQBxd04ADYzRa2tQCXXvwKaNac2xkPzTQTMHETNhht
AwCgmidG4f6Yj/i8qeIsehuCwm+ec7w=
=Kw1V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
