Re: next approach: new non-free/contrib policy

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Philip Hands wrote:

> > > Absolute Drivel!
> > 
> > Thank you for your kind words ;-)
> 
> :-)  [That probably needed a smile, sorry to be so strident.]

No problem. I'm a grown up (usually).

> 
> > > If what you say were true, some tin pot dictator could decide to outlaw 
> > > computer programs and thus move the entire distribution into non-free.
> > > 
> > No, we would only need to remove the distribution from any ftp servers in
> > that country.
> 
> You say that in this (admittedly silly) case we would only need to remove the 
> packages in that country, and that this would not affect their main/non-free 
> status.

Well, actually, in the case you sited (not altogether silly, considering
what drives some world leaders), there would be no place to host such
archives in that country. With all software illegal, any ftp sites would
be illegal as well.

> 
> In the case of US servers, on the other hand, the fact that the package cannot 
> reside on the servers is enough to warrant expulsion from the main 
> distribution.
> 
> This is a double standard.
> 
I see your point. However, my point is that we have already done this. The
non-us packages are not available in the "main" distribution. The point I
have been trying to make is that a "free" non-us section is a self
contradiction, since non-us == non-free by virtue of the distribution
restrictions imposed by various governments (not just the US)

> > Removing all ftp servers from the US wasn't determined to be a helpful
> > solution.
> 
> Absolutely, but there is a difference between the logical structure of the 
> distribution, and the physical location and structure of the servers on which 
> it resides.

Possibly, but I don't see how that effects the discussion.

> 
> Surely we can decide the logical structure of the archive without being 
> blinded by the fact that it may have to be structured differently physically 
> (i.e. bits of it outside the US).
> 
Then "surely we can decide the logical structure of the archive without
being blinded by the lack of "freedom" associated with the various
packages contained therein? I don't think so. The logical structure of the
archive MUST reflect the level of "freedom" associated with the contained
packages.

> > > Please try to avoid ``USA == whole world'' thinking.
> > > 
> > Nothing in what I said either explicitly or implicitly declared the above
> > statement to have any relevance.
> 
> Well, there seemed to be an implicit ``US laws matter more'', and that 
> impression is reinforced by your dismissal of my pathological example above 
> (i.e. that little country's laws don't matter as much as US law).
> 
My position on your "little country" example was strictly a pragmatic one,
not a philosophical expression.

> Oh dear, now I sound like I've got an anti-US chip on my shoulder, which is 
> not in fact the case.
> 
> All I'm trying to say is that we should make design decisions without 
> reference to local legal variations, and then where legal variations cause 
> problems, implement technical solutions to overcome them (rather than 
> modifying the logical design).
> 
But these "local legal variations" are specifically called out in the
DFSG! It is exactly these legal variations that caused the creation of
non-us! You can't have it both ways.

> > Gene splicers don't make up the "whole
> > world" either, but software that can't be used by Gene splicers is not
> > considered to be Free Software. Neither should software that is restricted
> > from distribution by a national government.
> 
> I think you've got you logic a little tangled here.
> 
No, you've simply missed my point...again.

> If gene splicers declared en-masse that they refused to use nvi for example, 
> this would have no effect on nvi's status as free software.  

But, of course!

>                                                         If on the other 
> hand author of nvi declared that gene splicers were prohibited from using it, 
> this would make it non-free.
> 
This is the exact case that is analogous to the "limited" non-us
distribution restrictions imposed by "local" laws.

> Equally, if another group of people (i.e. the population of the US) declare 
> that it doesn't want to use bzip, then that has no effect on the freedom or 
> otherwise of bzip.
> 
> > In addition, the US is not the
> > only backward government when it comes to restricting 'cryption software.
> > I know that, at least, France has more restrictive laws in this reguard
> > than even the US does.
> 
> So is this a reason to throw even more packages out of main, or not ?
> 
This has already been done. We were discussing the possible division of
the non-us archive. My point has simply been that trying to declare any of
the non-us software as "Free Software" contradicts the DFSG in both spirit
and letter.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .