Will Debian Remove 'Non-Free'? 211
An anonymous reader writes "A Debian General Resolution for removing the non-free section from Debian archives is being discussed by Debian Folks and the debate is turning into a flamefest. The proposal is aimed to clarify the position of Debian toward Free Software and the fact that non-free is not (and has never been) a part of the Debian System. But this would exclude packages such as Netscape, the JDK or pine of the Debian archives and opponents argue that the proposal breaks the section 5 of the Debian Social Contract. Here's where it started." Since I'm not a Debian Maintainer (hey, but a few of my old apps are in there, can I vote? ;) I've only got an opinion. I think Debian users should be able to install things like Netscape and Pine too, but I think they should be told the implications. The reality tho, is that if it gets yanked from non-free, other servers will pick it up. Maybe that is the hint that the non-free section is different from Debian's goal. Some people use Debian because it's better, not because it's the most free.
the debate is turning into a flamefest. (Score:1)
We can't let them get ahead of us! We must have the same flamefest here!
I'm assuming that, in part, is why it's been made a topic for us to discuss (***) here.
I, for the record, use Slackware and NetBSD, not Debian.
*** Flame fests bring in banner revenue, even if a bunch of ranting, bickering, and people just talking at one another does nothing productive.
Did we even need it? (Score:1)
So for me, this isn't any great shakes; but I guess purists who want the thing configured 100% debianly will be a shade miffed.
debian is better, not just because it's so "free" (Score:4)
Clarification (Score:5)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Makes sense to me (Score:5)
1) The user's need reduces. For instance, as free packages replace non-free ones (Mozilla for Netscape, let's say). If the user wants the non-free alternative, let them get it themselves.
2) If the task of providing becomes too onerous. For instance, disk space. There must be GIGABYTES of non-free Linux software out there, even if you only count the items that have debian packages.
Remember, Debian IS running a charity here. Why should a charity promote (in the money-making sense) other people's software?
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Non/Free and Debian (Score:5)
- For netscape there's Mozilla
- For pine, well, use another email client.
- For JDK, there's kaffe (it's coming along nicely)
- For Motif, there's Lesstif
One of the things that seperates Debian from the other distros is that it's dedicated to having Open Source software, unlike commercial distros which have no fear of packaging non-free software.Re:Problem with the Toy Story naming conventions (Score:1)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Is it just me... (Score:2)
On topic, who cares? If someone wants to run something on their box, they'll do it, regardless of whether or not Debian has a package available for them. The minute Debian stops putting the non-free packages on their site, someone else will start to carry them. Whoop-de-do.
I've found that package managers are nothing but a big PITA for my home box. I would imagine that if I were maintaining a large number of identical boxen a package manager would be handy. But for my home tinkering, give me tarballs.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Started Using Linux Because It Was Free (Score:4)
Debian also lets me gloat about wonderful features such as apt-get, so its not just philosophically better
Should they host non-free? Actually, as a first time Linux user, I had no trouble making the distinction in their current format. In part, this may be because I was attracted to Debian because of its philosophy; I understood the distinction and left non-free off of my system. I wouldn't complain if they decided to host the non-free repository on another server. But I would hope that there is still a source of
Make the distinction clear. Make it an extra line to type in apt-sources. Host the stuff on another machine. But give maintainers somewhere to host the non-free
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:1)
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing. Reject the amendment, and include KDE in Debian. Maybe then we won't all think of you as a group of pointless obsessives on some illogical crusade against proprietary software.
in a world of 150 or more Linuxes (Score:2)
So, Debian is trying something to be DIFFERENT. They are going to appeal to the 'free source' crowd. They are going to try to say 'our distro is most free'. Remember, at one time there was a rumor/mention that the Debian group was going to take the BSD kernel and wrap the code they wrap about the Linux Kernel.
What says it all.. (Score:2)
Think about it and he's right. In fact, if we do away with the commercial software, even if gaps are left behind, we are better off becuase (hopefully, heh) someone will fill the gaps. As he mentioned, there is already a free alternative to the major components in the system.
I'm not against commercialism (oops, don't want to be flamed...) rather, I would prefer to get the code with the product. Maybe expunge all binary-only and source-so-obfusticated-it-may-as-well-<b>be</b>-b
What do we have to lose? Binary only packages.
What do we have to gain? More open software, more code, more free beer.
Hey hey!
Off topic Matrix humor;
I need the code....
I need to recompile my kernel...
And you have to tell me how...
You're going to tell me, or you're going to grep
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:1)
Not to mention that for pico[1] (which is packaged with pine), there's nano, which is GPL.
[1] Yeah, pico sucks, I know. But it /is/ a lot of people's first editor.
[meta discussion] Flames - good or bad? (Score:2)
And here we see the hypocrasy spelt out - it is obvious that posting a story about a flamefest is inviting the flamefest to spread onto /. Personally I think that is a good thing - but perhaps Rob & Co should decide whether heated debate is or isn't desired on /.
--
Re:Problem with the Toy Story naming conventions (Score:1)
It will be a floppy distro after release
.What about Debian-based distros? (Score:1)
seanmeister
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:1)
Re:Clarification (Score:1)
I respect that. With Mozilla in a usable state now (it's my full-time browser at home; the only other one I use is lynx), I don't see any reason for them to continue distributing non-free software. Those who want that sort of stuff can go get it themselves easily enough.
I finally stopped using software that requires a click-through (such as Netscape, Acrobat, RealPlayer, etc.) at home. I haven't noticed any drop in productivity or enjoyment of my computer. An increase in pride, maybe, but other than that, no appreciable change.
-Joe
Required Mirrors (Score:4)
Social contract uk [debian.org] Germany [debian.org] South Africa [debian.org] Japan [debian.org] Brazil [debian.org]
The Start uk [debian.org]Germany [debian.org]South Africa [debian.org]Japan [debian.org]Brazil [debian.org]
Let the users speak... (Score:1)
I've also learnt that the Debian maintainer hireachy is democratically elected, so wouldn't it be an obvious choice to let the International community of Debian users vote on this issue?
But personally, I see the removal of non-free and contrib as being a setback for the Debian movement in that it could possibly remove an incentive for disillusioned users of other distributions from becoming future Debian users.
IMHO, The separation of the "non-free" and "contrib" trees from "main" is surely a clear distinction for ideologically bound Debian users seeking to fanatically follow the Debian Social Contract. As long as Debian continues to separate non-free and contrib from the main tree, Debian GNU/Linux will always be ideologically superior to moralists, and I will be one of those who'll always recognise that irrefutable fact.
It would be a great shame if Debian does not respect the wishes of it's user base. So please, let the users speak...
----
You shall now notice I'm wearing asbestos underwear. I shall now proudly endure the flames for the Debian cause and what I believe in! = P
Re:Did we even need it? (Score:1)
Don't you hate it when packet-loss in your brain causes words to be left out while you mindlessly write something on
It happens to me more often now than before, it must be a sign of the world coming to an end pretty soon. Or maybe Word 2002 will provide a fix?
- Steeltoe
Why worry about Netscape, Pine or the JDK? (Score:1)
Pine -> Mutt [mutt.org]
JDK -> Kaffe [kaffe.org]
What was the problem again?
Rich.
How about 'freedom of choice'? (Score:2)
Free software is widely promoted as primarily about being freedom of choice and freedom of what to do with the software. However it seems that they are taking away the freedom to choose whether you wish to install the non-free software. Of course this would be a very different game if it included commercial software requiring mandatory payment, but the inclusion of free-beer type software is a choice, and hence freedom, that users would demand. It is unfortunately not the case that there are always free alternatives that are corporate-environment quality to some programs. For example web designers cannot be expected to create professional web pages with only w3m or current gtk/qt browsers.
The choice to install non free-software serves as an indication to newbies that there is much interest in Linux for all forms of software, which is great for convincing corporate types. Of course we wish they didnt need convincing with non-free software, however compromises must be made.
As long as it is clearly indicated what the problems with using non-free software are, then the choice to install them as part of the distribution should be available.
Re:Did we even need it? (Score:1)
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:3)
There is actually a very pragmatic reason for only including "free software": it reduces the risk of tripping over a restrictive license. I'm sure the debian guys and gals would be very careful about what to include in the distribution, but what happens when the publishers change the redistribution rights? What was suddenly a staple application in one release of debian could suddenly be gone in the next, greatly inconviencing users. Now, what would you have debian do in this situation? Screw it's users by leaving the software out, or screw it's users by bending to the will of a commerical software publisher?
Bug Tracking System (Score:2)
If all of the non-free .debs are removed from debian and put somewhere else, the ability to improve those programs, through the reporting of bugs via the debian BTS, will severely diminish the overall quality, usability, and integration with Debian.
Yes the packages will be available elsewhere, but their ability to interoperate within debian, I fear, will diminish.
The example of KDE (hosted at kde.tdyc.com) is probably a good example of how an independant repository for .debs should exist. It runs the debian BTS also, so that there is a good mechanism for reporting and following up on bug reports. It also has several mailing lists for users, developers and announcements. These things allow the seperate Debian KDE site to keep itself better integrated with the rest of Debian.
The only way that I, as a Debian user, would want to see non-free seperated out, is if it were done in such a way that the non-free packages weren't simply dropped, but phased out onto a seperate non-Debian site that included its own instance of the BTS, and ran a set of mailing lists.
If that could be done, then I think that seperated non-free allows for Debian to keep their philosophy intact, and not hurt their users in the process.
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:1)
But if Debian gave all the extra stuff then you still might as well download Mandrake. It loses its uniqueness. Debian doesn't need many supporters. It just needs enough.
The Stallmanesque psychonauts are sufficient in number to ensure that Debian is still worthwhile.
Huh? (Score:1)
In A. it is stated that there will be `areas in our archive' (== non-free?):
While B. says these areas will be removed:
Are these `new areas' to contain only helper-stuff and not the non-free software itself, is that it? Any examples of such `stuff'?
Jan
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:1)
Mozilla is not yet ready to replace Netscape (still beta software) It lacks JAVA & SSL support.
> For JDK, there's kaffe (it's coming along nicely)
Kaffe isn't a drop-in replacement for the JDK. not yet
> For Motif, there's Lesstif
Motif is not in the Debian non-free archive.
A problem that was pointed at on the debian-list was that there is *not yet* free replacement for some packages. The supporters of the GR say that in the time woody is released, (>18 month they say) Mozilla and Kaffe will be ready. So opponent replied that the GR should be voted in that time.
just out of curiosity (Score:4)
Am I breaking any license if I put debian and some non free packages on the same CD?
Am I breaking any licenses if I modify the debian setup in such a way that it accessess and installs the non free packages?
If the answer to all of the above questions is NO, then please explain to me what this discussion is about. If the answer is YES, please explain.
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:3)
Not entirely true.
Red Hat has the strict policy not to put anything that is not free on the main CD, with the sole exception being Netscape because the free replacements aren't ready yet. (Mozilla and Konqueror are great, but at this time, they're even more unstable than Netscape or lacking some features that are needed). We'll replace it as as soon as the replacements are ready.
Debian, the Res Publica of Free Software. (Score:5)
Yesterday I got moderator privelages: today I have moderated. Now I will revoke that moderation in order to post.
Debian is something of a bedrock amongst the free software and opensource camps. It is the most consciously, self-aware and organised project of its kind, anywhere. It exists solely for what it perceives as the greater good. Money is not the aim - the aim is to uphold principles.
Much like the roman Res Publica of old, the Debian project enjoys a sophisticated governmental structure. In a sense, Debian is the wise old head of distributions, moving at a stately pace across both technological and ideological landscapes. It brings a strength and enduring quality that other projects could well lack. Quite simply, Debian will not die because of commercial whim nor lack of interest.
I think that we, the wider programming and user community, should look on this tolerantly. For Debian, this proposal is quite radical: an amendment to the Social Contract on which stands all of the actions. This is like a US statesman proposing an amendment to the Bill of Rights in nature, a fundamental reform or change to a very important document.
But, ultimately, Debian will decide. I do not think it is our place to judge them, whichever way they may turn. The fact is that Debian examplifies a non-anarchic model in a community where benevolent dictatorial anarchy (if you can use such a term!) is revered. It has long been run by wiser hackers than the most of us, and will be run by wiser hackers long after the frothing mob of Slashdot has passed.
Consider also the outcomes.
Debian will probably come under a lot of fire if it choses this path, by some fire-branding types in the same mould as the person proposing the Resolution. It would hurt the "image" of Debian as the most free of the free. On the other hand, I do not believe that Debian, taken as a whole, would care what people think of it. Nor will pragmatists who admire Debian for its technical excellence.
Internally it will cause continuing friction between camps. Certainly, a rejection at this stage would make later proposals even more bitterly contested ("We've rejected this already!"). In the most extreme circumstance, the pro-camp may fork Debian. I do not expect this to happen, however.
Debian will come under some fire for this path, but not so much. The pragmatists in the hacker world seem to be less voiciferous than the ideologists. Linus will rise above it all in his usual zen-like serenity.
Internally, I expect pressures will be less intense than the "no" option. It is far harder to undo such a thing than it is to do it, hence the pressure to undo will be less than the pressure would have been to do. And, obviously, the matter won't come up again in that "to do" form.
Whatever happens, I'll be watching with interest. For while this is a Debian matter, Debian is one of the strongest corps of the Freedomware community. What happens to them will have spill-over consequences for others.
be well;
JC.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
remove non-free, not contrib (Score:2)
Also in contrib are installers for non-free packages such as staroffice (isn't that free now?) and netscape. These packages require you to first get the non-free tarball into a temp dir and then run the installer package. This at least sets up the non-free program into the debian dir structure correctly and points various menus at it (such as in gnome). Other contrib packages are various wrappers around seti@home. At least seti@home is a good cause, even if the software is not open source...we should support the on going work here. (Yeah I would like to find a message from some little green men).
I hope they will continue to have these contrib packages in the archive, even though they do require non-free software. Mozilla does not replace netscape (it still sucks).
BTW did you know you can run Internet Explorer on linux under wine? YUCK!
Re:What says it all.. (Score:1)
What do you mean, he's already done it? Does this "emacs" thing do javascript? I see.
It's got everything Vern... (Score:1)
The second thing is that it's got nearly everything packaged and available via the standard system... this is a big plus and lessens the time it takes to admin (especially for workstations) and thus my frustration levels. All I have to do is a quick 'apt-cache search ' (sometimes with some grep'ing) and then an 'apt-get install '.
I have a lot of confidence in the system and most of the time it lives up to it (when I used RedHat I typically gave a 50/50 chance of updates breaking something... don't get me wrong I loved RedHat when I used it).
Removing non-free will make my life more difficult and thus I'm am against it. I don't care about the Free != FreeAsInBeer concept nearly as much as getting something that gets things done and well (which the 'Free' concept can help).
Brian Macy
What's the process? (Score:1)
I'm curious :)
be well;
JC.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:1)
I don't think anyone here would contend that being open guarantees quality. We've all seen the crap published on freshmeat. Of course, we've also seen that profit motive does not guarantee quality either, and in some cases, discourages it.
Oh No yet another Distro will be spawned (Score:1)
I've been using Debian for 2.5 years. It is my prefered distro due to the package management system. Not because of anything political. If Debian drops Non-Free then there are immediately going to be several spin off distros offering this. I doubt any of them will maintain a Non-Free area as well as Debian can.
Well if it comes to this I think I'll start a new company Linux Two. For $20 you the user will have access to my download page which will link to debian's servers and display detailed documentation for alien
Nothing New (Score:1)
This debate surfaces about once every 6 months to a year. Sometimes more often, sometimes less.
Personally, I think non-free should stay. Its nice to have, even if its not used by everyone. I think I only have 2 packages on my system out of non-free, (netscape and um...realplayer?)
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:2)
I also find Mozilla to be more stable than Netscape, but I guess I'm one of those people with problems with Netscape. (nnng - must destroy java banner ads!)
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:1)
Besides which, KDE is not distributable purely based on their license, which makes it a violation to distribute it linked with QT.
Debian: Operating system or Religion? (Score:2)
It is, after all the users that justify the existence of Debian and to deny that is the mark of a zealot. Whilst the arguments are sound - nobody is going to prevent users from downloading, using or compiling proprietary software but, unfortunately even in the Linux world, users are beginning to possess the same mentality as Windows users - "Why should I have to download, compile, install it all on my own and read the vast amount of documentation on how to integrate it with Debian, when Mandrake, RedHat, Microsoft do all that for me?".
And therein lies the problem. From a political standpoint, it most definitely *should* be available for anyone out there in a apt package ready to be easily installed into an otherwise free Debian system. It will have to be a matter of sane compromise: 95% of Debian users won't be able to create packages for their software and sadly, most software requires some serious tweaking for it to fit into Debian.
Unfortunately for all, Debian seems recently to have taken major steps away from sanity and towards free software zealot status. You'd be forgiven for thinking, based on the actions of many of its adherents recently, that Debian was a religion rather than a damn fine OS. Just remember that zealotry is the enemy of reason.
Re:Started Using Linux Because It Was Free (Score:3)
My modification to your suggestion is that Debian will simply let the non-free maintainers have one package in the distribution, and that is the package which is used to access the non-free archives. Then the non-free people can use gnutella/ftp/freshmeat/apt-get/whatever interface(s) they can agree on to provide the easiest way for Debian users to work with their software. If the expense of distributing the software outside of Debian is too great, the question must be asked, is this bloatware? And if the cost is substantial, I would expect that the license holder would generally be willing to either meet the Debian criteria to move into the Distro, or stump up the cash/space. If they won't do either of these, you can hardly say that they diserve the support of Debian can you?
Re:[meta discussion] Flames - good or bad? (Score:2)
I don't consider posting a controversial comment as flamebait necessarily. And, yes, heated debate can be a healthy thing. The point is if you're going to post something just to get everybody all riled up, that's flamebait. If you post a viewpoint that is perhaps 'against the grain', but with the intent of sparking a lively, but sincere, discussion, that's not. That's what forums like this are for, as you point out.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
----------------------------
This is somewhat ridiculous ... (Score:3)
If the Debian group doesn't want to promote commercial software through their charitable organization, so be it. They exist to support Free Software, not to offer every choice available under the sun.
To take your argument seriously, they'd be including Windows with their next distribution as a matter of freedom of choice. :P
You know what to do with the HELLO.
Debian shooting selves in foot (Score:4)
And those people will convert to a Debian-based distribution that includes Netscape etc.
Let Debian do what they want; there's room for all sides here.
--
why worry about tomorrow? (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
But for tinkering, I still like tarballs.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Re:Started Using Linux Because It Was Free (Score:1)
--
DeCSS source code! [metastudios.com]
you must amputate to email me.
That's the point, isn't it? (Score:2)
I can see two good resolutions:
Borrow from Mandrake (Score:1)
This could be heavily borrowed on Debian. During the standard install, a prompt is issued explaing that the user can choose to install non-free packages at this time from a remote server. The prompt would have a condensed free software manifesto explaining the disadvantages of commercial applications and list free software alternatives to those commercial apps.
By doing this the Debian "distro" remains free but doesn't limit the freedom of the user in choosing the packages they wish to install initially.
Re:Let the users speak... (Score:2)
Actually, voting has been proposed. It takes five maintainers to get it through, so it's just a matter of time. (Yes, I am a maintainer myself, and yes, I think this is a good proposal. After all, having a clear distinction between what's free and not is a Good Thing)
just a change of wording?? (Score:1)
Read the intial proposal, and some of the responses. The proposal seems like it wants to basically clarify the stance of Debian on non-free by completely upheaving the current system. However, the end result is that nothing will change. All it will do is make it "look" slightly different.
This just seems painfully stupid, and I can only hope that the more rational people in power at Debian will see this.
Re:What about Debian-based distros? (Score:1)
Everyone tells me to wait for the "next" version of Deb/Storm. Theoretically, I could be gumming a chicken bone at the old programmers home when the "next" version comes out.
My guess is Linux will go to the lawyers. The only reason MS hasn't crushed Linux is they are using it to pretend everyone isn't forced to use Windows. If they split MS, I bet those gloves come off. MS OS buys a few Linux versions and sues the rest out of existance.
Let's Be Pragmatic (Score:1)
I think that the OSS community has taken the position that software *should* be free, and there is an ethical imperative to use free software (courtesy of RMS). However, I believe that there is an ethical imperative to use the *best* software for a given task, so as to support the innovators, whether they release the software free or not.
The fact is that free software would not exist without commercial sofware. Throughout history, the greatest artistic products were developed by people who could be confident in their survival because of their financial position. If people capable of developing quality software were forced to work three jobs in order to eek out a living, they would not have the time or energy to devote to free software. Since the software industry has produced hundreds of thousands of developers that are capable of living a comfortable lifestyle, they can offer their time to develop free software of high quality.
Both free and commercial software have their place. It is best to offer users the option of using the best software for the task they want completed, whether commercial or free, as long as they are aware which is which. Debian current distribution style is good. Leave it alone.
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:1)
--
sell point (Score:4)
Don't give up freedom for comfort!
Keep it pure and don't be swayed from your goals. The Debian team is doing a hell of a job and don't want to see them "taint" their GNU/Linux distro with non-free and/or commerical software.
Re:When ideology attacks.... (Score:1)
No, we have not. The topic is still up for discussion on debian-devel.
What about these people who wish to test out Debian with Nvidia GeForce cards (which are pretty much going to become the default). Should we say to them "no, you cannot use our Linux", or should we say to them "yes, you can, but notice how unbelievably flakey they are, and what a bunch of arseholes nvidia are and don't buy another card from them ever" (sorry, personal rant)I don't have a GeForce, but I have a TNT2. As you might know, nVidia has released some kind of junky binary-only driver for XF86 4.0 for this card. I got so angry when I first heard about this. It is my right as an nVidia customer to use the card in whatever operating system I use. I can not do that, since their buggy driver don't even work with DRI. Why can't they just do like any normal company (3dfx for example) and release the specifications?
Oh well, end of rant...
Re:Clarification (Score:1)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Logo (Score:1)
>bit too much like the Transmeta logo?
Sure does, but being that Debian's logo has been around longer than Transmeta, I would say it's the other way around.
Back to topic...
To me this whole non-free issue is just the case
of somebody being lazzy to go out and get what
they want!
Suck it up and enjoy a GREAT FREE Dist!
Blair
Re:Problem with the Toy Story naming conventions (Score:1)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Remove the Linux kernel from Debian? (Score:1)
The HURD kernel kinda-sorta works at this point. Debian should remove Linux from their distribution and replace it with HURD. Then they should only include software that has been specifically blessed by St. iGNUcius.
It's either that, or it's time to get off the high horse and include things that make Linux a useful operating system. They can start by putting KDE on the disc (the fact that they currently refuse to do so is the primary reason why many people choose other distributions). As it stands now they're kind of middle-of-the-road about this stuff
--
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:1)
I've always turned off Java{script}, even on Windows, just because it's annoying. So Netscape will only crash 5 or 6 times a day now.
Re:sell point (Score:1)
What does average user #1 think when they install Debian and realise that Debian can't handle their nvidia graphics card (as an example, nobodys packaged it yet). Let's say this is the first Linux they use.
I don't condone nvidia for making binary only *incredibly unstable* drivers. I think it's a stupid evil idea, and my next card will not be a nvidia card (I was going to get a Geforce 2, but now I might just wait for the new ATI card or get a Voodoo). However, in spite of this, you cannot say to somebody "no, you can't use our software because your card is no good".
if people move to mozilla it'll be because it's better. Removing non-free will simply mean that it is more hassle to install netscape, pine, qmail etc. It, in the end will only hurt Debian and Debian's users - very few of whom use no non-free packages.
tarballs v packages (Score:2)
so much easier, I love not having to worry about what ftp site has the file I need.
----------------------------
Re:When ideology attacks.... (Score:3)
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:2)
~luge
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:4)
-hypocritical mode on-
You are quite right. Whatever you need and want should be first and foremost in the minds of Debian. After all, they are here to make a profit, and making a profit requires satisfying users without concern for whatever ethics may have brought you, as a sys admin, to make debian packages in the first place.
Believe me, I expect to find Netscape, KDE, Pine et al. as part of my linux distro. And if it's not there, then why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
Well, of course, right again. Why not package everything you can ? Who cares about freedom anyway ? When you find that bug in netscape that locks it up on pages with Java, and you submit it back to netscape, you can expect that bug fixed immediately. Or at least within the normal turnaround time of commercial software.
--hypocticial mode off--
Which is to say nearly never. And when you find that there is some subtle bug that you know you can fix and contribute back to the authors, please write them and ask them for their source so you can help them by helping yourself.
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing.
Debian would exist if only for the sake of its packagers. Of course it is much larger than that. Their packages take care of all the little details that sys admins would otherwise need to do. The cron jobs are nicely done. The initscripts are very clean. Security is tight. And I am comparing Debian to other non-Debian distributions. Debian exists to provide the kind of distribution that its packages want to provide. And maybe that is "free". Maybe it is "open source". But the primary goal of the distribution is not its user base.
Debian also can act as the basis for commercial distributions, such as Corel. Any non-free programs can be provided - just by someone else.
So get used to it. Some packagers of software want to produce software the way they think software should be. And they KNOW that will provide substantial benefit to the software industry. And that is good enough for them. Not everything and everybody needs to cater directly to the user base. And if that makes the Debian packagers zealots in your mind, so be it. They have good software to build. And they do a very good job at it.
you must be kidding.... (Score:3)
Debian would be the first to admit that they are noncompromising. They have a social contract that they are quite proud of. Further, they do have close ties with the FSF. They are very open about all of this. It defines who they are.
Debian should remove Linux from their distribution and replace it with HURD.
Yeah, because Linux isn't free software, so it goes against their whole philosophy to use it. Infact, Debian's purity is obviously polluting the Linux kernel by being involved with it. Wait...Linux is GPL. Linux is not FSF, but it is definately free software. Incidentally, there is a version of Debian built around HURD, but it's not very usable yet. Still, use it if you like.
It's either that, or it's time to get off the high horse and include things that make Linux a useful operating system.
Why on earth would they do that? If they included proprietary packages, then Debian would be Just Another Linux Distro, as opposed to being the bastion of purity that they want to be. I don't think you truly understand what Debian is about. Further, the argument is that there is no longer a need to use non-free. Most everything there has been reimplemented in a free manner.
You may not be sympathetic to Debian's cause, but if you're not interested, then there is no reason that it should affect you. This little debate is internal to Debian. The rest only know about it because someone posted it to slashdot.
Personally, I think that Debian should deprecate non-free and remove the directory from us.debian.org . If it is only hosted on secondary servers, it emphasizes the fact that those packages are a not part of the main distribution. Then they can start removing packages at first feasibility. For instance, now that OpenSSH supports ssh2, there is no real reason to keep around the non-free version of ssh. However, I really don't think that Mozilla is up to replacing Netscape
I think that this change is very much in keeping with Debian's goals, but I also think it should be taken a bit slowly.
--Lenny
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:4)
This is an important point that a lot of people in this discussion seem to be missing. It's not like Debian is banning non-free software and tweaking glibc so that no non-free software will work with it. They're just going to stop actively hosting and distributing it. Makes perfect sense to me.
Why should a charity promote (in the money-making sense) other people's software?
It shouldn't. That's why the resolution is a good idea. I do think that there are a lot of people out there for whom the popularity of linux is a very important thing. When people like that hear about a resolution like this, they think that without providing non-free software, debian will not have as many users as it could.
Well, it's just my opinion, but I don't see debian as competing with Red Hat because they're so different. I also don't give much of a damn about how many users are running debian. But at the same time, I think that many of the fears about this resolution are unfounded - this wasn't just put out by a group of zealots who want to restrict everyone's access to non-free software, and this probably won't affect debian's popularity at all, since non-free software will surely still be available in abundance.
I look at this resoultion as strenghthening and purifying all of the good aspects of Debian. Noncommercial, with a strong focus on Free Software.
Here's the real facts (Score:2)
The proposal is basically to remove non-free from the debian archives, and remove references to 'non-free' in the Debian Social Contract [debian.org].
The main points for the proposal are:
Against:
My opinion is that non-free and the social contract should remain as is. Free software will continue to be developed - one day it will not be necessary to debate this decision because all of the non-free software will have a better free alternative. It isn't the right time for this proposal at the moment.
In the meantime, it doesn't make sense to carry out this proposal because it only harms the users of Debian.
ObDisclaimer: I'm not a Debian developer, just a lowly Debian user.
--
"You take a distribution! Rename! Stamp CD's! IPO!"
- CmdrTaco, Geeks in Space, Episode 2 from 6:18 to 6:23.
non-free (Score:2)
I subscribe to the notion that free software/oss is fantastic. I really DO think it's the future.. however, there are packages that are non-free that I *require* to do my work. I don't have time to fuck around trying to get them to work. Part of what makes debian nice is it's package management.
I would be happy if non-free split off to a separate group.. but having the
IF they aren't there, I'm just going to do it manually and make a mess.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2)
This is fair enough -- when good free alternatives exist. I don't consider Mozilla to be a complete replacement for Netscape quite yet. I don't know about the other non-free packages.
2) If the task of providing becomes too onerous. For instance, disk space. There must be GIGABYTES of non-free Linux software out there, even if you only count the items that have debian packages.
Someone on the debian-devel list said that non-free takes up approximately 10% of the debian ftp site size. The way debian main is growing, this percentage is very likely to decrease. Disk space was not a common 'pro' choice for this proposal on debian-devel, although the against crowd were saying that it should not warrant carrying out this proposal.
Also, non-free does not get updated nearly as often as main does, so there is much less work required for the mirror sites to remain in sync with non-free as there is for main.
Remember, Debian IS running a charity here. Why should a charity promote (in the money-making sense) other people's software?
Firstly, non-free does not mean 'costs money'. It generally means 'free beer, not free speech'.
Secondly, Debian's Social Contract [debian.org] states that the interests of the user are first priority. Clearly the maintenence of the non-free section is for the benefit of the end user.
Do yourself a big favour and check out what is actually in [debian.org] non-free before you pass judgement on it.
--
"You take a distribution! Rename! Stamp CD's! IPO!"
- CmdrTaco, Geeks in Space, Episode 2 from 6:18 to 6:23.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2)
Well, in order to promote free software, you have to get people to use it. And right now there is little market acceptance for a 100% free software system. Let's face it. In today's real world, non-free applications must supplement what OSS software developers cannot.
Until Mozilla is stable enough for every day use (its not, trust me
Pine I honestly don't understand. Isn't pine a BSD (or BSD-like) license? That meets OSI, right?
Anyhow, IMHO mutt [mutt.org] is a much better mail client
Bruce quit Debian, remember? (Score:2)
return 1
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:2)
IANADD (I Am Not A Debian Developer, just a Free Software Advocate)
Re:How about 'freedom of choice'? (Score:2)
it is hypocritical that debian should purport to be a free ( ie: =~ /free/) distribution if they do not distribute material which does not support their point of view (or personal bias, in the case of KDE/Qt...).
it should be taken as granted that people have sufficiently developed brains to decipher what is meant by the 'non-free' CD. debian is showing itself to be more like a religion in its ideals than a group of dedicated computer enthusiasts.
to slashdotters: for freedom's sake, please show some balanced moderation which supports both points of view...
Re:Debian, the Res Publica of Free Software. (Score:2)
You will be sick of Slashdot in 6 months.
Re:Debian, the Res Publica of Free Software. (Score:2)
No! Don't do it! (Score:2)
f*ck. I love apt. I love debian as a distribution. I've even come to love the installationsystem
But, removing non-free? Uh.. that means.. removing ssh (from non-us) ? (OK, openssh exists).
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2)
Re:Debian, the Res Publica of Free Software. (Score:2)
If, in a government certain rights are given as fundamental. Then these rights are restricted for the greater good of the people until said time when the ability to exercise said rights becomes available it becomes the duty of said government to remove those restrictions. This is the same sort of deal that Debian is going through. The basis for the distro is for an entirely free distro, no strings attached. Although Debian needed a good portion of non-free utilities to be usable to a larger community at first, a number of free alternatives to these non-free components have arrisen (to the first approx.). Not all of these alternatives are completely stable, or even close to the non-free version, but they do exist. Therefore the removal of said packages must be exercised.
Perhaps they can reach a settlement of, if no free alternative exists then it stays, like JDK.
I personally am not happy with the idea of no non-free packages in the primary Debian distro, but I understand. One of the reasons I use Debian is the ability to go to one place to find all of the packages that I need. If this proposition is passed then I will need to go searching for other sites that have what I need. Oh well, I can deal with adding a couple more links in my sources file.
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:2)
nuff said...
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:2)
Your comment seem to be lecking consistancy. You complain about how long their is between debian stable releases and then you complain about gnomes lack of stability. The reason that there is so long between debian releases is so that it is stable and not broken.
I agree that Debian releases are to slow. The best times are during the early part of the frozen cycle, but i have found that as long as you don't force anything you can have a perfectly stable system with an unstable dist. With many of the Red-hat derived distributions being released every few months there is a definate lack of testing, that while not showing up often is still there.
Finally as someone who has just recently moved to gnome, I must say that it is completely stable and quite fast. It is very useful, and I have spent very little time with any themes. In my limited experence with KDE I have found it good, but there is no compelling reason to use it over gnome.
However if Debian removes the non-free, and i have to install Netscape with dpkg i will stop using debian because there is no advantage over a RPM based distribution.
Re:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre (Score:2)
could you code up a free acrobat reader client?
how about SATAN, can you make a GPL one of those?
want to redocument mysql? or make a nes emulator?
what about majordomo? or xmame?
how about mpg123?
sorry, I don't buy that argument
Re:just out of curiosity (Score:2)
That said, using the packages in debian's non-free section is generally fine, if you are using them for noncommercial uses, and don't repackage them.
For example, Pine's license requires that it not be redistributed in modified format. Thus, debian's installer distributes it in its original, unmodified format, then goes through and fixes it once it is on your computer. If you then packaged this and gave it to a friend, you would be in violation of their license.
MySQL is a cool program, which is free, and open source. BUT if you use it commercially, you are required to pay $200.
Debian's ideology is that their distribution is totally free...it can be used for development according to the GNU, BSD, etc. licenses that meet their standards of freeness. You don't need to be aware of a lot of nuances to do what you want with debian's distrobution...it's not going to bite you in the ass. Except for the nonfree grabbag.
And, there are tons of servers out there which provide these already, and you'll probably find many of the sites offering .deb's the same way RH people find RPM's.
HURD is on indefinate hold (Score:2)
RMS would not decided on using HURD for GNU until HURD was usable. GNU is a project to create *useful* free software. The code is not worth a damn if nobody uses it. He wants to give computer users a *valid* alternative to using proprietary code, and thus is pragmatic insofar as functionality. He is resolutely *not* pragmatic when it comes to licensing, to user's freedom.
However, if RMS went mad and asked Debian to remove Linux from the distribution, it wouldn't get him very far. A few might be loyal enough and short-sighted enough to obey. They would splinter off of Debian, and fold back into FSF. Meanwhile, Debian would continue, with a severed connection back to FSF, and less a few long-hairs.
I don't like RMS bashing. He is not someone I would take home to show Mom and Dad, but he is highly principled and one hell of a hacker. Infact, to many he is the Last True Hacker. He forms the link back to the old days at MIT AI labs. The spirit of AI labs
--Lenny
But what about ultra-free stuff in non-free? (Score:2)
Other items in non-free include free software which must be distributed in source form only, or software whose "source" tarballs must be distributed unmodified. (That doesn't sound unreasonable, until you try to add packaging information. That's a modification of the tarballs!)
Another example? Crypto software which can finally be exported from US mirrors should still be "non-free" since it may be illegal to import and use in some countries. That breaks the DFSG (at least, in some people's views) because its discrimination on the basis of nationality if the license says you can't use the software where it's illegal to do so.
Finally, and arguably the biggest category, is software which is free for personal, non-commercial use but which requires a license for commercial use. E.g., the latest version of ghostscript or mysql. N.B., these packages often define "commercial use" very narrowly. It's important to acknowledge the restriction, but it generally doesn't affect the legal status of any system in question.
It's easy to see "non-free" and think "oh, that's software that you must pay for" but that's rarely the case - few Debian supporters want to use *that* type of non-free software. To me, this is nothing more than an ideological pissing contest similar to that seen between the GPL and BSD license camps -- a lot of heat and noise produced by zealots on both sides, with the vast majority of Debian maintainers and users baffled why the minor problems have been blown up into a crisis.
Hmmm... I'm confused (Score:2)
As for the year and a generation behind remark, for what I work on, that works for me. I prefer software that works than the absolute sexiest distribution and what not. Some of us actually do work with our computers, and that work isn't just making an eleet theme for Enlightenment.
If you want everything to break, because none of the bugs are fixed yet, run Mandrake, they'll proudly give you things like X4.0 standard, which may or may not work reliably or quickly for you. And they'll continually refer to 'security levels' when a problem is reported, instead of actually checking and seeing that 'yes, there is a problem no matter what'.
I'm unimpressed by the latest and the greatest, I want to do work, I don't want to worry about whether or not Eterm accepts escape sequences in a manner identical to xterm or not. I upgrade to fix bugs, or to gain useful functionality. No other reason.
----------------------------
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3)
well, considering the way you wrote this statement, I assume this means that you have a non-ext2 partition?
Assuming you have this non-ext2 partition (we won't mention any OS names here
And if you have non-free software, it is probably safe to assume that you have this non-free software because you need it.
So this all means two things:
1. Despite what you say, your system is not 100% free software.
2. You have failed to prove that there is a substantial market for a 100% free system.
Right?
What'll be a damned inconvenience (Score:2)
The truth is, qmail is probably the best mail transport system available. It's easy to adapt to everything from single-user dialup systems to massive Web-based free email systems ala Hotmail (I know, I've done both!), and it works well, and it's secure. (How many security alerts have you seen for sendmail recently?) But, since its creator, Dan Bernstein, will only allow it to be freely redistributed in source form, that disqualifies it for main or contrib, and it has to go in non-free.
Still, the Debian qmail-src and serialmail-src packages are a lot more convenient than building it yourself from the tarballs. If they give non-free the boot, I lose that convenience. And right now, that upsets me, because qmail is something I need to keep my mail running properly at home. I could just start compiling it from tarballs again, but, if I have to do enough of that, I might as well switch back to Mandrake...or go buy Corel and get most of what makes Debian a great technical distro...
<RANT> /etc/apt/sources.list if they want. But totally dumping non-free solely for the sake of ideology would be a signal that they're more interested in having a Politically Correct Distribution(TM) than a distribution that people will actually want to use.
They can put the non-free stuff on separate servers if they want. They can force me to manually add the necessary lines into
</RANT>
Eric
--
Not Gigabytes - Also what about contrib? (Score:2)
Also, not everything in non-free is a product of some greedy corporation. There are lots of things in non-free that are only breaking one point of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and some are barely even doing that.) For example, software with full source code available, but only for non-commercial use.
The other main reason not to remove non-free is that lots of packages in contrib depend on things in non-free. If Debian were to remove non-free, then that would break lots of things in contrib.
All in all, this isn't the right time for this proposal, it should really be held off until there are acceptable replacements for the packages that people consider important.
--Adam
Non-Free Packages (Score:3)
netscape, xanim, mysql, acroread, unzip, java jdk, tao, nedit, xmame, povray, xv, majordomo, pine, distributed.net's deal, solid sql, archie, big brother, cIRCus, cucipop, mrouted, rat, nntpcache, tin, trn, mpg123, glimpse, gpg (idea, rsa, rsaref modules), pgp, dqs, omniorb, ucbmpeg, cyrus imapd
Most of this I could probably live without, but MySQL, Cyrus IMAPd, netscape, acroread, mpg123 (used by a lot of other peices of sw), pgp (need backdwards compatibility, and majordomo (come on, even linux-kernel uses this) don't really have decent full-featured equivilents.
The question really comes down to how many resources do maintaining these non-free packages take? I would assume the bulk of the time is put upon the packager which volunteered to handle it anyway. The space requirements is only about half a gig and there really aren't that many packages.
That's what they're doing! (Score:3)
That is EXACTLY their proposal. The move will affect the Woody distribution, which they estimate will be released in 2 years.
Re:Non/Free and Debian (Score:2)
The only problem with your theory is that it doesn't make any sense. The GPL is only one example of a free license. The BSD license and X license are other example. You should read the GNU site sometime (www.gnu.org).
Re:Debian shooting selves in foot (Score:2)
I don't agree that it's a loss. Was it a loss for Linux when the Mandrake guys decided Red Hat didn't cut the mustard?
It's a big, expanding market right now. The more people can get into it now, the better position we'll be in when the shakeout eventually comes.
Survival of the fittest; and there's a whole lot of little furry scurriers running around right now, fighting for the Microsoft dinosaur's niche.
Asteroid Jackson just hit, but it'll be months before nuclear winter kills off all the thunder lizards. We have time to keep improving our species.
--
Re:Debian shooting selves in foot (Score:2)
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You're completely wrong.
It's totally unlike the BSD split; for a while, that made for tremendous application-compatibility problems, whereas Linux has never had any major problems along those lines.
What problems Linux has had along those lines have been related to glibc version incompatibilities, and you can have those even within a distribution.
But the main problem, is that this commercial-oriented Debian would now get a big amount of money, that the 100%-pure Debian won't get.
I.E., the market speaks. Instead of berating it, you should be listening to it.
If an arbitrarily-chosen point of principle means you fail, then you have to accept that failure or reexamine the principle.
What's more important to you? If it's more important that Debian remain free, then what do you care how many people are using it? It's of no impact to you, at least not in comparison to your point.
--
Re:Here is a slip Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2)
Well, according to the Debian Guidelines, the goal is for software that meets the Open Source Definition. Since MPL meets OSI, what is the big deal the Mozilla doesn't meet GPL? The goal is 100% free software, not 100% GPL software. Software does NOT have to be GPL to be considered "free".