Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian Prepares To Vote On Non-Free Software

Posted by timothy on from the definitional dept.

DJFelix writes "Manoj Srivastava, Debian Project Secretary, has posted a proposed General Resolution regarding the handling of the non-free section of Debian. This is very important to me, as I am a Debian maintainer who only maintains non-free packages. If you are a Debian non-free maintainer or Debian non-free user who does not want to see the non-free section disappear from Debian, I highly suggest you get involved."

25 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. The Ultimate Question by xilmaril · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is quite an important decision.

    freedom vs. usability?
    freedom vs. laziness?

    the difference is strictly opinion, I suppose

    personally, I hope it disappears, but I can definetly see how that would hurt some people.

  2. Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are not proposing to delete all non-free software off the debian servers. They are only proposing to not make it an option in the installer by default.

    Since most anyone who uses debian is familiar with apt sources, it would be trivial to add another apt line in your sources.list to get your non-free software. (If you're not familiar with apt sources, you're probably running RedHat?)

    Hmm.

    1. Re:Scare tactics by El · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're not familiar with apt sources, you're probably running RedHat You mean it's just like rpm? ;-)

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Scare tactics by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Funny

      No. Apt is just like [python,ruby,ipod,mac]. It includes tech that requires one to post how good it is in every last discussion forum on the internet. :->

    3. Re:Scare tactics by xenocide2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This runs deeper than you would think. Debian is built and steered by volunteers. Demonstrate a commitment and aptitude and you will be included in their group. Within this broad association of "Debian Developers" are a few who have some moral stick up their butt about anything not GPL'd.

      It comes up reguarly but this is the first time (that I know of -- they don't keep a history of failed resolutions) that it wasn't dismissed out of hand. A few months ago someone came up with a magical list of software in non-free. The result was basically acroread, java and some decompression tools. This data comes from popcon. What they don't tell you there is what sorts of ways the pop-con program distorts things. Pop-con is not well known among users. It also requires a functioning mail server, something many desktop installations forgoe. Nearly every linux installation in our College of Engineering runs Debian, but they don't use pop-con. And the sample size of people reporting with popcon is fairly small compared to the actual size. One can argue that statistical sampling means a lot even at 10 percent of the population, but there's a good chance.

      Myself, I run Debian unstable and hardly pay attention to what's non-free. I do know that some of my stuff, like the NVIDIA drivers packaged by Debian, are very non free and very useful. Acroread is also invaluable. If Debian drops support for non-free, I may be looking for a new distro. I wonder how UserLinux feels about the situation, given Bruce's GUI choices were based on being able to make software for any purpose without restriction, including commercial exploitation.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  3. Not that bad by El · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Although everybody should have the choice of using non-free software, shouldn't it be distributed as an add-on instead of part of the base distro? Or am I missing something here?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Not that bad by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      *Amendment Text The actual text of the amendment is:
      Propose that the Debian project resolve that:

      Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
      programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we
      reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in
      our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the
      use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
      lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages.*

      seems to me that it's about using debians resources on making them packages available.

      whats the easiest way to vote that "hell yes, It's good to have them?"

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Not that bad by Cecil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree with that interpretation. It wouldn't make sense to append an amendment that says "nevermind, actually, do the exact opposite." Especially if it would need majority to pass, when defeating the original only requires a quarter against.

      What the amendment is saying, is: granted that we're no longer including non-free packages in any distributions from now on, we will still provide the non-free software that's in older distributions, as well as continuing to offer bug tracking and mailing lists for those packages.

      Note the part where it says "in our archive".

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
  4. I have mixed feelings by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many (possibly most) of the programs in the "non-free" repository actually meet the FSF's definition of "semi-free" software. Basically, this is non-commercial-but-otherwise-free software, i.e., it comes with the rights to use, copy, modify, and redistribute, but not the right to sell. I don't think this sort of software should be part of the system (and indeed, the non-free repository is not part of Debian), but aside from that, I don't find it objectionable.

    What I'd really like is to replace "non-free" with "semi-free", and only allow semi-free software in - but nobody has proposed that. Oh well.

  5. Warning: Your free distribution will be tained... by braddeicide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    New users will install base, and be disappointed when they see the programs they want are not in apt. They don't know a decision has been made to make it harder to search/install non-free software. They probably have never looked at sources.list

    I think a better solution would be a warning by APT if you install a non-free package that your free distribution will be tainted by the non-free packages license. Like when you add non-free kernel modules to the kernel.

  6. Voting by Blue+Meanie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Voting begins on Sunday, March 7 at 23:59:59 UTC.

    Voting ends on Sunday, March 21 at 23:59:59 UTC.

    Link: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002

    How to Vote: http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_vote

    --
    -- [mf] BM
  7. more than that by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The proposal is also to drop support for the non-free section. What, exactly, this entails is not completely clear to me (and I'm a Debian developer), but at the least, I think it means no guarantees of security updates or even bug fixes.

    Also, the non-free repository is currently mentioned by the Debian Social Contract, which is part of the Debian Constitution, so it has to be there. This proposal removes it from the Social Contract, clearly opening the door for the repository to be removed entirely in the future. (Which may be just as well if there are no security updates.)

  8. Voting is open to Debian Developers by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Informative

    But if your public key isn't in the Debian keyring, this information will not be very useful to you.

    1. Re:Voting is open to Debian Developers by runswithd6s · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...and your public key doesn't enter the Debian keyring unless you're a Debian Developer. Regardless, it is still an interesting topic for the end-user to keep tabs on. It will eventually affect how they use Debian.

      Things to keep in mind:

      Even if Debian stops supporting (distributing binaries and bug-tracking) non-free software, a new non-free repository will likely spring up quickly. Bruce Perens has already reserved the domain name nonfree.org (check 'whois nonfree') for this very purpose. It only needs a project team to implement the site/mirror/lists.
      --
      assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
  9. votes is for devs only? by EisBar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As far as I can tell, only debian developers can vote, so what can a debian user do avoid this from being approved?

  10. bad idea by abrotman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is probably a horrible idea. I'm not a Debian developer, but I use it and enjoy the idea that I can add non-free to my sources. If non-free were to go away, I would probably not recommend Debian to a newcomer. I believe that Debian should support its users wishes(not the developers), and noone is forcing anyone to use non-free.

  11. non-free by _aa_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use debian pretty much exclusivly now. While I do appreciate and enjoy other distros from time to time, debian is the distro with which I am most familiar, and most comfortable.

    I'm presently running unstable, and yes I do have non-free packages installed. I do however very much encourage debian to dump non-free.

    For those who fear they may be inconvinienced by the lack non-free need only look toward apt-get.org or other unofficial apt repositories. Or of course you can simply install non-free packages from source or binary form direct from the software creator.

    If debian does drop non-free, I will continue to use debian, and I will still likely have non-free software on my system (nvidia-glx), though the inconvinience (if any) will encourage me to give free alternatives more attention.

  12. The last time I did an install of Debian.... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The installer ASKED if you wanted to use non-free.

    Frankly, if they remove that OPTION, I think I'll be switching to another distribution the next time I upgrade.

    --
    Dark Nexus
    "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
  13. Re:Freedom by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, they're just going to make it less easy. You can install whatever the hell you want.

  14. Debian should lead by raphae · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that Debian can and should fill a very important role in the world of software and information technology and remain at the forefront of the free software movement and continue to push the envelope of freedom by leading forward strongly in the direction of complete freedom.

  15. good. by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    debian/RMS zealots are the worst enemies that linux has. the GPL and the open source movement may be the best thing that has happened to the IT industry since the invention of the personal computer, but a religious adherence to the notion that *all* software *must* be free as well as open source does linux more harm than good.

    free software zealots are linux's greatest enemy, not microsoft. by marginalising itself further from the linux mainstream, debian is tacitly endorsing this religious fervour, to everyone's detriment. extremist measures never get you anywhere, just ask bin laden.

  16. No big deal by alex_tibbles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Debian exists to give easy access to *free* software. Non-free is just an optional extra. The packages will still be accessible from non-standard apt sources, so don't sweat it! People who want to provide such sources can; people who want to use them can. Debian will never *prevent* people doing what they want, because it will be 100%, therefore modifiable, redistributable etc.

    One possibly important point is that Debian cannot be the FSF-approved GNU/Linux (/whatever else) distro until it removes non-free.

    On a side note, there are a few points where non-free software is by far the best available, or the only realistic alternative. These are the places where free software development can be really useful.

    An example of a technical challenge that is really now maturing is free Java environments - classpath, kaffe etc are getting good enough to be viable on their own without non-free Sun stuff.

    Many areas that need work are beyond mere hacking but require serious social/political work - like Nvidia drivers another poster talked about, and Flash plugins etc (similar issue - non-free plugins/kernel modules are a pain when ABI/API changes).

    Anyway, back to topic - Debian is about user freedom. This include the freedom to add non-free software, at your own choice, but the core is about free software.

    --
    Posters recognized by their sig,
    1. Re:No big deal by debian4life · · Score: 2, Informative

      I concur. If people want to get "non-free" software, they can just get it somewhere else. That being said, I would leave it up to the software originator. If they don't mind having their software GPL'd, then they just put it in the regular repositories. If they do mind, then it does not go in there.

      The only non-free thing I have ever used is unrar. There are so many other places to get it that I am not going to stop using Debian because I have to go to more than one place to get Linux software. I don't see the big deal.

      But then again, I don't use much non-free, so I am not the world's biggest expert.

  17. This dismays me by twem2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The view any computer user should take is to use the best software for the job, not is this software 'free' by some set of standards. Debian are producing a product for users and should take the user's needs into consideration not petty politics which could have an adverse effect on their users.
    This will also cause problems with a central part of the system, the man pages. The upstream package now contains non-free (by Debian standards) POSIX man pages so the man-pages package may have to be moved to non-free or split with part going into non-free.

    And the clinching argument against this move is the loss of rogue from the distribution as it is packaged in bsdgames-nonfree. Every Unix systme should contain a copy of Rogue so hours can be whiled away searching for the amilet of yendor ;-)

  18. Re:My concerns about debian by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Debian doesn't detect hardware?

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.