Re: Possible Partnership

["Brian C. White" <bcwhite@verisim.com>]

> > What I would propose is a partnership between them and us such that they
> > can take over most/all of contrib & non-free and any work they do for
> > "free" packages gets sent straight back to us.  Even without this, though,
> > the partnership could still be beneficial.
> 
> I object.  It would be illogical to give them all of our non-free
> packages on the one hand and being very careful to other new
> maintainer on the other hand.

Being careful about new maintainers is just good sense and has no
relevance to this idea as far as I can see.

The only purpose to moving contrib/non-free to another site is because
many people in the past have expressed a desire to do so and make
Debian "completely free".  I don't think that this is the best thing
to do, but it seems like a possible solution.  Unfortunately, those
people who previously clammored for "completely free" seem to be
conspicuously silent at the moment.



> If they are going to maintain most of our non-free packages by time (I
> mean taking over one after the other, maintaining them, uploading
> them, showing that they do a good job &c) I don't see a reason to
> object.
> 
> IMHO it would be unwise give up all of our non-free packages and
> moving them into a company.

What I am suggesting is not to "give up" our packages.  This is a
partnership.  A partnership is where two or more entities work _together_.


> > It is not their desire to sell a proprietary system (like Caldera), but
> > rather one that includes some software that Debian currently classifies as
> > "non-free".
> 
> This is fine and should make us happy.  I would like them to maintain
> random packages (the ones they need), like normal maintainers.

The actual agreement would have to be worked out.  If Debian is willing
to organize contrib/non-free a bit better, perhaps they would keep
all of their packages directly under Debian.  It depends on how much
value they place on the packages they create.

Of course, doing so would make Debian even less "completely free" and
that would draw complaints from the other (currently silent) side.


> What I would be very happy about is if they (as a company) could get
> licences for some packages so that they could produce and sell a
> 
>                           Commercial CD-ROM
>                      Containing Debian GNU/Linux
>              Including all non-free and contrib packages

It would be this and more.  They would actually support KDE (as in donate
money to the KDE project) and probably other systems as well.


> > The advantages to this that I can see are:
> >  - Higher profile for both groups
> >  - True (paid) support for a Debian distribution for those who want it
> >  - Better support for contrib/non-free packages
> >  - Debian becomes "free software only"
> 
> But Debian/GNU Linux is more than the buzz/rex/bo/woody part.  There
> are many important packages that are located in non-free.  A Linux
> Distribution without them would pain for many people.

Actually, Debian GNU/Linux is _only_ buzz/rex/bo/hamm.  contrib & non-free
are considered outside of the distribution and largely unsupported.  I
agree that this is a pain for many people, but this is the policy that
Debian has chosen to adopt.  I don't agree with this personally, but
there are many people who do.


> > I don't really see any disadvantages to this other than Debian would have
> > some responsibilities to its partner, but I don't think this is necessarily
> > a bad thing.
> 
>   o We would lose control of all non-free packages, important members of
>     the Debian project work on and with them.

Assuming they want to take over maintenence of contrib/non-free packages,
then Debian would lose control of them.  I don't see that happening.  Why
would they want to?  They make take over some if they feel the need for
more work than the current maintainer can provide, but that happens
all through the distribution and works quite well.  I maintain cfengine
because we use it internally and the original maintainer didn't use it at
all.

>   o We might lose important packages

We're not going to lose anything.  At the very worst, we would pick up
a package where we left it and catch up (which is still less work than
maintaining it all the way along).

>   o We would trust a company that we don't know (compared with an
>     unknown maintainer...)

Part of any partnership is trust.  We can set out some guidelines in
the partnership agreement, but that's all CYA work.  Getting to know
the other company (and the 4 people involved in it) is a pretty minor
matter.  Much more so than getting to know 200 maintainers.

>   o Debian GNU/Linux would depend on that company

Not really.  If that software can be packaged by us now, then it can
be packaged again by us in the future.  We may depend upon them making
certain packages available, but they have no hold over us.


Look at it this way...

Currently, contrib and non-free sit alongside the Debian distribution
without any official support.

If they took over contrib/non-free, then those areas would be better
organized and sit alongside the Debian distribution _with_ official
support for anybody who wanted it.

>From an FTP user's point of view, there would be almost no change.  Both
partners would mirror the other so they appeard together almost seamlessly.

>From a CD-manufacturer's point of view, things become a little more
troublesome with respect to "contrib".  "non-free" remains unchanged
as far as problems for them.  Perhaps we could keep control of contrib
or perhaps we'd have an agreement such that the contrib hierarchy could
be taken by other CD-manufacturers in the same way as they can now.  Since
this company's goal is not to sell a proprietary system, I don't see why
they would agree to the latter.


> >          * I gather the main Debian site is currently hosted by iConnect,
> >            and I'm a little worried that our involvement may offend them.
> >            (ie. They generate revenue by selling Debian CD-ROMs, which will
> >            also be a large part of our business). I'd just like to be sure
> >            that we're not stepping on their toes, since they have provided
> >            a great service to the Linux community.
> 
> Why don't you simply install a Debian mirror, produce and sell those
> CD-ROMs, too?

That was their original plan.


> I wonder why there should be a special partnership between Debian and
> this company.

The idea is to benefit both sides.  The handling of contrib/non-free
was supposed to be something that _we_ got out of the deal.  They'd
rather not have the extra responsibility if it isn't necessary.  If
we want to maintain it ourselves, I'm sure they will be more then happy
to let us do the work.

Some people, however, don't want contrib & non-free in Debian.

The benefit they get is we point to them if anybody comes to us looking
for paid support, an integrated KDE system, or whatever else they provide.

We get out of it enhanced credibility (because of a supported Debian
distribution) and their work on packages that Debian doesn't really want
anyway.


> >          * Our company's main software product will be a Debian
> >            distribution (with a couple of extra bells and whistles, including
> >            support). If things go well with the rest of the Debian board, then
> >            we'd probably move to a 2-CD set (one for core Debian, and one for
> >            the non-free stuff that we host --- Except that I suspect core
> >            Debian no longer fits on a single CD, but you get the idea).
> 
> Uh uh, this would imply that there will be two Debian GNU/Linux
> distributions.  (If we should ever split there would be three [or
> four...]). I strongly object.

There are already several Debian CD distributions.  This would just be
one more.  Again, the idea is to work together and avoid overlapping
effort.


> >          * Our company will be open for business around the end of May.
> >            Our ftp server will be in place by that time (barring acts of god).
> 
> So it's a new company?  Just my confusive mind, but if the company
> should go bankrupt after one hear, we would have another 88 orphaned
> packages? Ohhhhhhhhhhh

It's most likely that the current maintainers would continue to maintain
the packages.

Even if you assume otherwise, the total number of maintainers stays the
same so what it actually means is 88 different packages that could be
maintained for a year before having to take up the non-free ones again.


> Just a question from me: Why can't they simply contact the maintainer
> to let him include the particular patch or take over this particular
> package?  This is the case with most of the packages, why should this
> particular company be handled in a very different manner?

They can and I suspect they would.  Just because we move the physical
location of the files does not mean that the maintainer changes.


> Err, I just saw that you want non-free to not reside on master?  This
> would imply that no simple user that installs Debian GNU/Linux via ftp
> (or receiving a self burned from any maintainer).  If that's the case,
> Debian would lose many users, there would be no pine, no xsnow, no
> msql, no xarchie, no a2ps, no chimera, no majordomo, no xv &c.  We
> could close the project because we could hardly persuade somebody to
> install a system where important parts would be missing.

Not exactly.  The Debian mirrors would mirror both master and another
site seamlessly side-by-side.


> Again: I would appreciate further help, but it should find its way
> back to the Debian project.  Subtracting Debian of these parts would
> be a very bad idea.

I don't want to subtract parts, but rather move them where they would
get more attention.


> > They would get the prestige and recognition of being a "Debian Partner"
> > and we would point our users to them if they wanted more than is provided
> > within Debian proper.
> 
> Isn't it enough to say "We are Debian Maintainer", "We maintain
> packages for Debian/GNU Linux" and you'll get perfect support here? I
> object against a "special partnership" in the case you described.

It's not special; it's "strategic".  We help them, they help us, and
everybody comes out ahead.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Generated by Signify v1.01.  For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/