Re: non-free packages should document/advise about alternatives
I wrote:
>> Requiring this formally will make it impossible for many commercials to
>> contribute (since you cannot reasonably be required to mention the
>> competition).
Mark W. Eichin replied:
> Umm, I don't see how that follows, actually. Granted, we're trying to
> avoid that the *other* direction, ie. avoid mentioning non-free
> "competition" to free tools, but that's a special case, philosophically;
> here the idea is that "any time we can give the user more information, we
> both win." I don't recall anything in any license that prevents the
> change, for example... can you find any examples?
I'll give you a rather detailed example (which also serves other goals)...
It is my pet example: what if Corel decides to sell a "fully functional
WordPerfect (tm) workstation" based on Debian. They could do this by
putting the Official Debian CD-ROMs in a box together with a CD-ROM
containing just one large "wp.deb" file with WordPerfect compiled for
Debian.
In my such an arrangement would be mutally beneficial: we get all Corel's
customers as Debian users who get to see the full range of wonderful free
software that there is. Corel gets a stable platform for their proprietary
software which is automatically kept very secure and up to date with
network protocols etc.
Of course there would be no links from "inside" the Debian system to the
Corel packages -- Corel will have to provide a booklet or whatever
explaining how to install their software after the Official Debian CD Set.
(And the owner of Corel package can resell, copy, etc. the included Debian
CDs as widely as they want.)
Now Corel would want to follow the Debian Policy out of respect for Debian,
naturally, but also because if they do they know that their non-free
package will remain functional even if a new version of Debian is released.
At this point they read that the Corel wp.deb description file must propose
free alternatives to WordPerfect ... rather silly, right?
> I haven't seen any indication that informal mention *wouldn't* be a good
> idea; if we can include it in the policy, then we can start getting
> maintainers of non-free packages to add the pointers. I'd still be more
> impressed with a more formal pointer, though, so that tools can tell the
> user automatically...
My point, really, is that Debian should remain an "open" system in the old
sense: we should not discriminate against any *uses* of Debian (main) be
they evil or not. (We should not "endorse" them either but that's another
discussion. :)
Cheers,
Kristoffer
--
Kristoffer Høgsbro Rose, phd, prof.associé <http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~krisrose>
addr. LIP, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, 46 Allée d'Italie, F-69364 Lyon 7
phone +33(0)4 7272 8642, fax +33(0)4 7272 8080 <Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR>
pgp f-p: A4D3 5BD7 3EC5 7CA2 924E D21D 126B B8E0 <krisrose@{debian,tug}.org>
Reply to: