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.

Comments

debian is better, not just because it's so "free"

[matticus]

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?

Clarification

[Biff Cool]

By removing non-free they are not disallowing Netscape, JDK, or anything else in non-free to be packaged as .debs they are just trying to remove it from the Official Debian Archives, they also claim that they are still willing to support users of non-free software they just don't want to be distributing it themselves anymore.

Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.

Makes sense to me

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

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?

Re:Makes sense to me

[Uruk]

If the user wants the non-free alternative, let them get it themselves.

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.

Non/Free and Debian

[chandler]

Of course removing non-free from Debian is a goal. What's the point of the Free Software revolution otherwise? The good thing about Debian is that it's not just an Open Source distro, it also works on behalf of Free Software. Eventually, we will replace non-free software on all systems with free software, right?

• 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.

Started Using Linux Because It Was Free

[cartographer]

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.

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 .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.

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 .debs they work on.

Required Mirrors

[bfree]

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

just out of curiosity

[jilles]

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.

Debian, the Res Publica of Free Software.

[Jacques Chester]

Hello all;

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.

1. Debian Rejects the Resolution. What signal does this send to the Free Software movement? What signal does this send to the Open Source movement? What signal does it send to commercial distros? What signal does it send to people who don't care about Debian's agenda?

   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.

2. Debian Accepts the Resolution. Again, what signal does this send? It's less ambiguous, IMO. If Debian says "yes", they are reaffirming and strengthening their pro-freedom stance. This Proposal is more ideological in nature than pragmatic: the rationale given discounts pragmatic arguments and forwards largely ideological reasons for the amendment.

   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.

Debian shooting selves in foot

[Syberghost]

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.
--

sell point

[jbarnett]

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:debian is better, not just because it's so "fre

[blakestah]

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.