The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: There are _TWO_ discussions here

In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.970801225229.1246A-100000@klee> you wrote:

: ... We should only seperate free from
: non-free packages--contrib is for "free" packages but which depend on
: non-free packages (of course, they are not "totally free"--but their code 
: itself can be considered as "free").

Aha!

It's a fundamental principle of group management to understand that a group 
must have shared values first, then can form a shared vision, then can develop
and implement plans to meet that vision.  What we have seems to me to be a
difference of values.  Makes it tough to do more than shout at each other.

Let me try to "diagram" the recent discussion.  It's helping me understand 
what the disagreement is about, maybe it'll help others... maybe it'll even
help us see the distinctions in our values, and help us work towards concensus.

If I hash the most recent messages from you and Dale together, what I see is
that there are 4 areas being argued for:

	1) fully DFSG compliant, with no dependency problems
	2) fully DFSG compliant, with dependency problems
	3) non-DFSG compliant, with no distribution restrictions
	4) non-DFSG compliant, with distribution restrictions

You think that only 1, 2, and 4 are important.  Dale thinks that only 1, 3, 
and 4 are important.  I see some value in distinguishing between 3 and 4, and 
now understand your motivation for wanting to have a separate section for 2.

Maybe the right number of areas is really either '2' for "it meets the DFSG or
it doesn't" as the only distinction (at which point we can argue over whether
the DFSG needs to be updated to include explicit dependency restrictions), or
'4' to preserve the above list of distinctions.

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I lean towards only having two
areas.  If we think the DFSG is that important, and we seem to, then 
arguing over what non-DFSG-ness to pay attention to and which to not pay 
attention to is a waste of our time.

Having said that, let me respond to two of your other points individually, as
they highlight other differences in what things we care about, and what we
think is easy or hard.

: Exactly. That's why we want to make the "free<->non-free" distinction more
: clearly. Everything in "contrib" can be distributed without problems if
: all packages in contrib apply to the DFSG, even if these packages are not
: `totally free', since they depend on non-free packages.

It is equally true that everything in contrib can be distributed even if some
of the packages in contrib don't meet the DFSG, as long as everything there
is freely distributable.  I don't agree that "freely distributable" is
complicated and obscure... if a given package's documentation doesn't make 
the distinction clearly, we drop it in non-free and move on to the next one!

: Sorry, but I still don't see the advantage of seperating
: "non-free-but-distributable" from "non-distributable" if this only
: affects 6 packages but makes things a lot more complicated.

Sorry, but I don't think it's complicated, and don't really care how many 
packages are affected in today's list of packages.

Bdale


--
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 .