Re: Debian needs you

[joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen)]

> aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu (Alex Yukhimets)  wrote on 01.11.97 in <m0xRohP-00045lC@localhost>:
> 
> > Surely we must have the criteria for the software being eligible to be
> > included into the main distribution. And let's call those criteria DFSG.
> > But let's understand that DFSG is not a bible. DFSG serves some goals, and
> > the means of attaining these goals may and should change as time goes by.
> 
> Here's a fundamental difference, I think. A large part of the DFSG, IMO,  
> doesn't _serve_ goals, it _describes_ those goals.

That's excactly what I wanted to say!

Fortunately, there are a few "Moderate" people still willing to speak out!

Thanks!

> > Another question is our relationships with non-DFSG compliant software.
> > Treating it as an enemy is plain *wrong*. And this is the most frustrating
> > (for me) part of the dogmatic approach we happend to wittness recently.
> 
> Well ... no. While a word like "enemy" is surely too large to describe the  
> situation, sometimes, non-free software really is a serious problem, and I  
> don't think there's anything dogmatic about that.

Enemy? That's not the right word! It's war! let's nuke those Qt guys,
tomorrow! (Not for there licence, of cource, that's just annoying. But
for all the waisted time on the debian-* mailinglist they caused).

(no, I've no intention of being serious today).

> OTOH, the approach taken by some people to address this problem has, at  
> times, surely been ... umm ... suboptimal. Like Bruce's first reaction to  
> the KDE CD.

yes, he should have used that red button next to his bed :) 
NUKE Qt, NUKE KDE.

> It seems clear that basing KDE on Qt is a real problem in this regard.  
> OTOH, it seems _also_ clear that antagonizing the KDE guys won't help us -  
> it's too late to affect their original choice, and it's not their license  
> that's the problem, and they already seem to understand the problem.
> 
> One thing I think we don't do often enough, at least in this area, is  
> looking at the long-term view - and how to get there from here.

(suddenly becomming serious) Again, just what I wanted to say.
It's happend quite often here, I think, that people new to Debian/free
software say "hey, I just installed Debian yesterday, it works OK, but
this piece of non-free would make it better: let's add it". While those
who-know (people like Bruce, I guess) have seen that non-free software
come and go, and just know it's not going to last, just because it is
non-free. The new folks apparently don't want to realise that Debian
isn't there just for today, but that we want it to be succesfull in
10 years time too. We just cannot guarantee that with Qt (we cannot
improve the source, for one thing).

If more people were to write software for Qt, all that software would
be lost if we ever have to switch to a different windowing system.
(or at least require serious rewriting, unless there's a free Qt clone).
People should realise that licences like Qt *do* pose a serious problem.

Actually, I'm seriously considering suggesting that we request all
new developpers to acknowledge that they not just read the DFSG
and our social contract, but also _agree_ with them. And, maybe
request that they solemnly pledge that they will never argue with
anything in it? (Well, maybe only on debian-DFSG-dissent).


-- 
joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org

My spamfilter is so good, it correctly catches 90% of incoming spam,
*including* all email from my PhD supervisor.


--
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 .