Slashdot Mirror
Debian Prepares To Vote On Non-Free Software
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."
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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