Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
Disclaimer and apology: This is just my honest opinion and not an anti-bruce
campaign. Bruce has done an excellent job leading Debian, of which I probably
owe my current involvement with the Debian project.
Fellow Debian Developers,
My older brother took a look at this and quickly murmured some phrases I won't
write here. I myself will try to be a little more reasonable and productive
with my words.
> We are the standard-bearers.
> We define free software.
> We show how it should be done.
> We are the demonstration that it can be done.
> We do not take the low road or the coward's course.
> We do not seek to fit in.
> We do not trade our principles for popularity.
>
> Bruce Perens
However, this above litertic is so far to the extreme in free software that I
believe we need to quite seriously analyze the angle from which we are coming.
I will not argue the GPL. If I had my way, all Debian software would be
GPLed. However, there is a reality to which we must submit -- the reality
that we simply enough live in a commercial world.
I stand by the following points:
1. Free software is most often better then non-free software. I believe this
stems from many facets, including both the heart and soul put into it and the
concept of something always coming better from volunteers then forced labor.
2. Also, certain limitations exist which make quite reasonable the desire to
somehow restrict the usage of software. As far as netscape and the like are
concerned, the can basically be labeled as absolutely anything we like, and I
have some not so nice ideas -- must worse then non-free.
However, there are many software authors out there who put a great deal of
time and effort into a program because they care about the result (and so on,
etc etc...). And then, when they release it, they attach say perchance one of
those "free as long as your non-commercial, then you have to ask me (etc,
etc)" tags on there which we all recognize.
Now, I think it is starting at not-very-nice and proceeding quickly into
audacious, insulting, and wrong for us to label them as non-free. If you
think about it, this is lumping there efforts into the same category that we
put netscape and the like. I don't believe that is something we should be
doing as a representative -- and I believe we are the most direct
representative -- of the Linux community.
This is only one side of the negative aspect of our current implementation of
non-free.
The next side, however, is that which might come from the reaction a new user
of Debian/Linux to the non-free section. I remember the first time I saw that
one of my favorite programs, Pine, was in non-free. And just because of this:
------> excerp from Pine copyright (/usr/doc/pine/copyright):
Pine and Pico are trademarks of the University of Washington. No
commercial use of these trademarks may be made without prior written
permission of the University of Washington.
It seems to me that from a certain extent, Pine is exactly the kind of program
that makes Linux great. A lot of new users come to Linux because it is one of
the only ways to flee the nasty bulkiness and annoyances that come with the
wonderful world of Microsoft (tm). And Linux works so well! (I am constantly
amazed of the things you can do with Linux, some of which you can do only with
Linux -- such as putting multiple addresses on one network interface, I
believe).
Pine = :-)
And we, the emminant and sovereign maintainers of Debian see fit to usher it
into the category of "non-free". I apologize for the sarcasm, but come on!
Is that the best we can do for them?
And no, I do not believe what I am saying is any of these:
> We do not take the low road or the coward's course.
> We do not seek to fit in.
> We do not trade our principles for popularity.
as some might say...
And from the final side, no matter what the case, we have to maintain good
public relations!!! I am not saying we need to bend our ways or ideals and
suddenly throw all non-free and contrib into main.
I do feel, however, that we without a shadow of a doubt need to incredibly
revise the way we currently deal with free/non-free software.
Please consider what I have said here strongly. Please do not reply in
"free-software passion" as I have tried to respond as best I can with
reasonablity. And (hoping noone would even suggest this) I have no intention
of "leaving Debian" anytime soon or "going off and starting my own
distribution if I don't like the Debian way". I do not feel that I could
justify not expressing the way I feel to support the words of Chris (Lameter).
As my closing point, I want to excerp a section from an interview of Linux Torvalds by Hiroo Yamagata. The full interview can be found at http://www.twics.com/~tlug/linus.html.
------------> Begin Interview clip <--------------
Hiroo Yamagata: You have become one of the champions of free software. However, unlike Richard Stallman, we don't see you commenting much on what free software should be and what it means to all of us. Are you interested in these "promote free software" aspects at all, or are you more interested in the software itself?
Linus: I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I _much_ prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.
So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I _know_ it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).
However, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to commercial software. Commercial software development has some advantages too - the money-making aspects introduces some new incentives that aren't there for most free software. And those incentives often make for a more polished product.
For example, I've been very happy indeed with the commercial Linux CD-ROM vendors linux Red Hat. What commercialism has brought into Linux has been the incentive to make a good distribution that is easy to use and that has all the packaging issues worked out - essentially everything is easily available.
Before the commercial ventures, Linux tended to be rather hard to set up, because most of the developers were motivated mainly by their own interests, which very seldom include issues like ease-of-use. And with Linux, commercialism doesn't exclude the availability of sources, so you get the best of both worlds.
Then there is software that is commercial but doesn't come with sources (the "traditional" commercial software as opposed to a Red Hat Linux distribution). And I don't try to preach against that either: I hate the fact that I (and others) can't fix bugs in them, but sometimes that kind of software is the way to go.
------------> End Interview clip <--------------
If any of our opinions matter, it would be his.
Sincerely,
Paul J Thompson
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: