Slashdot Mirror
Will Debian Remove 'Non-Free'?
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.
i use debian on my server because of the power of dselect and dpkg, and because the logo looks cool :). but face it, linux almost certainly wouldn't be here today if Netscape hadn't ported. don't lie to yourselves and say that there was an alternative. pine is a great email package, and Java is necessary today. getting rid of them out of the standard Debian distribution is just a nuisance-most people will install at least one of those three anyway, so why make them download it out of a quasi-political stance?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
Debian is a non-profit trying to promote free software. They are only providing non-free software as a convenience. They should stop providing if at least one of two conditions are met:
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?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
- 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.Visit
...or does the Debian logo look just a bit too much like the Transmeta logo?
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
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Actually, I started using Linux because of it is Free. I had heard about the OS, and read a little about Linux. The more I looked at it, the more fascinated I was. When I started the process of picking a distro for my first install, I read up about the various offerings; the one I selected was Debian, because of its non-commercial and adamantly Free nature.
;)
.debs around for software that I might need for some reason or another. Hell, I use WinNT at work; I certainly can imagine grabbing a non-free package at some point.
.debs they work on.
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
Linux has many different distros, all trying to gain mind-share. Sameness VS the market leader won't help you grow, and odds are you will shrink.
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.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
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
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
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 /.
--
As poor www.debian.org is having to take a bit longer under the load, how about
Social contract uk Germany South Africa Japan Brazil
The Start uk Germany South Africa Japan Brazil
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
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.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Why is it that everyone who refers to the strawman linux "zealot" sound a bit zealous themselves?
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?
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.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Am I breaking any license if I install a non free package on debian?
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.
Jilles
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.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
The 'contrib' section of debian is for any package that itself is totally free, but depends on a non-free package. Lyx is such a package. If the non-free libs required by lyx are not supplied, then while lyx could still be in contrib, it would be useless. Even worse, it couldn't be tested so how would you report any bugs against it? The user would have to get the non-free forms lib tarball from its' homepage and then install lyx from the debian archive.
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!
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.
ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,ø`ø
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.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
Some people use Debian because its better, not because its the most free.
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.
--
I can see two good resolutions:
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)
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.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
I definitely recommend trying Debian, and I also recommend trying FreeBSD (just to get a different perspective about what's out there in the free *nix world). I used to be a tarball guy too, but now it's cd /usr/ports/mail/leafnode ; vi Makefile ; make && make install
so much easier, I love not having to worry about what ftp site has the file I need.
----------------------------
Uhm, I have an Nvidia GeForce card, and I run Debian. The Nvidida drivers will *never* be available from Debian servers, unless Nvidia changes their license. (current license forbids redistribution) So this doesn't affect you at all. On a related note, I *do* have the latest Nvidia drivers installed. Just because they aren't on ftp.debian.org doesn't mean they can't be used with a Debian box. I think this is a common misconception about the effects of this proposal.
Since my moderation of this post DOWN doesn't seem to have registered, I'll blow all my moderation in this thread by pointing out that this isn't Bruce Perens. If Taco and Co. really want to bitchslap someone for abusing the system, this guy should be the guy... it's not creative, it's certainly not very funny, and it is badly misleading. It is one thing to lie in posts (sig 11, you listening?) but it is another altogether to lie about your identity in the hopes of confusing or defaming others.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
This refers to "contrib". The idea is that popular non-free software could be given a "helper package" that would do the meat of the installing for you (untar, copy binaries, etc.), as well as allow the user to manage non-free software through apt/dpkg as much as possible.
Once again, we see Free Software supporters acting like zealots, putting some ill-founded political principle in favour of the needs and desires of their users.
-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.
The more I see the antics of the Debian folks, the more it seems that they're pretty much just a shill for the prohibitively uncompromising antics of the Free Software Foundation
... just yet.
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
The proposal is basically to remove non-free from the debian archives, and remove references to 'non-free' in the Debian Social Contract.
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.
"Chiswick! Fresh horses!"
As for debian wanting to strongly support it's beliefs.. I'm all for that. But here's my outsider point of view.
.deb packages available for these things *is* a convenience.
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.
def will_bruce_quit(x):
return 1
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Ouch. That hurt. I've been promoting Debian for a long time. If they really go through with this .. well, then *that* is the end of me liking debian.
:-)
.. That means .. removing netscape? (Where is the current alternative? Mozilla? is mozilla free enough?). There are.. tons. . of applications in non-free that is important for me, and others. It won't stay that way forever, but removing non-free *now* is a bad thing. Doing it in maybe 2 years time - THAT would be ok. But, don't remove it before we've got tools to replace it.
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
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
nuff said...
As a Computer Scientist and professional system admin who uses debian at home, I hope i'm not responding to flamebait.
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.
are you volunteering?
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
First of all, I respect RMS. Secondly, RMS likes Linux just fine. HURD was meant to be an innovative kernel with lots of nifty features, but he has stated that his *primary* goal was to have a Free Software kernel to use for GNU. The nifty-newness of HURD was always secondary. Since Linux fills the need of GNU's kernel, the development of HURD has essentially halted. HURD would be nice, but it isn't here. Linux is, and he is fairly content with it.
... the openness and cooperation is what RMS is trying to recreate in opposition to the commercial, proprietary trends that the industry has experienced since those early days.
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
Sounds great, but don't forget that the Debian definition of "free" excludes some code because it's *too* free. E.g., a classic "non-free" license is one that prohibits the inclusion of the package on any media for which *any* charge is incurred. Not even media charges. That means you can't get that package on a $2 disk, or bundled with your "Quick-Start Linux" book, or (arguably) even shrink-wrapped with the current issue of Linux Journal.
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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
your comment seems to imply that non-free is already gone. it's not. it contains lots of tasty, but non-gpl packages.
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.
----------------------------
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
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Non-free is only a couple of hundred megs. Remember, non-free doesn't contain every single non-free piece of software out there, just the ones that someone (A Debian developer) felt were important enough to package.
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
Just so people have an idea of what Debian's non-free tree looks like:
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.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
"Doing it in maybe 2 years time - THAT would be ok. But, don't remove it before we've got tools to replace it."
That is EXACTLY their proposal. The move will affect the Woody distribution, which they estimate will be released in 2 years.
When I say free software, I always mean free as in speech, not free as in beer or free as in choice, or free as in love.
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".
My journal has hot