Re: weekly policy summary
Hi,
Since Alex is otherwise busy, I have to take his mantle up and
represent what I think is an important balancing aspect of Debian.
>>"DGMS" == Davide G M Salvetti <salve@debian.org> writes:
MS> Freedom of software should come on its merits, not because on
MS> Debian it is hard to find good (but non-free) software.
DGMS> This is something I agree with. However: Debian is not (at least in
DGMS> my eyes) an inform collection of software, the more the better.
DGMS> First of all Debian is an operating system, and a free (in the freedom
DGMS> sense) one.
And is is going to be the best OS there is. That is more
important, in some ways, than even the feedom aspect (shock, horror)
DGMS> We should not include in Debian every single piece of software there
DGMS> is, and in fact we cannot include a broad collection of
DGMS> software---sometimes better, or even far more better (from a POV I
DGMS> don't share, but you and many others apparently do) than what we
DGMS> have---just because its license doesn't allow us even to redistribute
DGMS> it, let alone to use it. Beyond this, we choose to make Debian a
DGMS> _free_ operating system: non-free software has naturally no place in
DGMS> this project, for the very reason we choose to rule it out.
You are ignoring the other set of people who comprise Debian
-- the onle who want to make Debian the best possible OS there is,
the one that meets the needs of more people out there, the ones who
choose free software because it is _good_ software.
You come from the side of Debian that evangelizes the freedom
aspect, but there are others who don't really care all that much
about the ``purity'', but only about functionality, performance,
utility, et. al.
DGMS> So, why should we fear to *choose* what do we want to be Debian?
Good. My choice is that the non fee references are in. Your turn.
DGMS> After all, if other people and/or group disagree with our
DGMS> choice, they can still build a `better' (from their POV)
DGMS> distribution on top of ours, and we declare ourselves more than
DGMS> happy with this approach. Where's the problem? We even have
DGMS> non-free, and contrib, what should we do more to accommodate
DGMS> non-free users?
Cause ``we'' do not choose (or, at least, have not yet choosen
to be a purely free distribution, there are pragmatists amongst us
(always have been; we broke off from the FSF when we felt the quality
of the distribiution would be compromised by staying with the FSF).
DGMS> As you see, this whole issue stems from this one question: «What do
DGMS> you want Debian to be?».
Precisely.
MS> What if it is true? What if the non-free software does indeed
MS> provide functionality missing in Debian? We bury our heads in the
MS> sand and pretend that it does not exist? We do our users a disservice
MS> and make it harder for them to discover and istall the missing
MS> functionality?
DGMS> What's the problem about installing non-free software on a Debian
DGMS> system, by hand, or by means of a deb package if it exists?
None whatsoever. And we tell the users that the functionality
is there, and we make things easier for our users, not harder. People
deem our installation process hard enough to start with, without
adding complications.
DGMS> Nobody here wants to forbid users to do this, and there are many of us
DGMS> who are indeed happy to help. We even encourage software companies to
DGMS> build their own deb packages, if they want to: does this means we
DGMS> should allow those packages to be referenced from Debian (i.e., main)
DGMS> ones?
IMHO, yes.
DGMS> We are not the User Information Department, what we truly are is
DGMS> expressed by this definition:
We are trying to make the distribution as one which is easy to
use, and helps our users. I absolutely reject the above statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------->
DGMS> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
DGMS> common cause to create a free operating system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------->
DGMS> we shouldn't IMHO forget it.
I think we should not forget our commitment to our users. In
my opinion, we have committed to integrating the non-fee software
that is *NOT* part of Debian in a manner that the OS seems a cohesive
whole. The references are part of that.
MS> We do free software a disservice by trying to hide non-free
MS> software, or making harder to install, on the grounds that we fear
MS> that too many people may use non-free software if we do so.
DGMS> We couldn't act like this even if we wanted to. Users have
DGMS> plenty of information about non-free software with or without
DGMS> our contribute, and even if we stopped building precompiled
DGMS> debs of non-free software, we couldn't stop others (and
DGMS> companies) from doing it.
I do not agree. I do not feel the users have things quite
easy, and we do not havce to worry about ease of use issues, which is
what your statement boils down to.
DGMS> So, how could we make non-free software hidden, or harder to install?
By removing the references you are indeed making it harder to
see, and thus install.
manoj
--
Olmstead's Law: After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is
said than done.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: