Debian is huge. It's long past the point that non-free could support its own organization.
When I created the original Debian Social Contract, non-free wouldn't have been self-supporting. But we've had this hypocracy about non-free since then. Non-free is not officially part of Debian, but is maintained as part of Debian, using all of the same facilities and within the same organization. Debian can now afford to be 100% Free Software and no exceptions, and can put non-free somewhere else with people who care about it. APT will handle this very easily, there's no overhead to the user except perhaps to change/etc/apt/sources.list once, which we can do for them with a script.
Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
Wouldn't the *script* be free, therefore being eligible for the main Debian archives?
If you have a problem with it being a script to allow access to non-free packages, write one that will add any apt source to the list, instead of just one for non-free.
Some time before non-free disappears from Debian's mirrors, we'd make some base package require a package containing an installation script that looks to see if the user is presently using the non-free repository. So, everyone who runs an upgrade would get this package, and it's script would run. If the user is using the non-free repository, the user gets a note that it's moving, and is asked if he'd like to reset his apt choices to the new location of non-free or to do without non-free from then on, in which case we'd present the list of packages that would be lost from the system.
Debian isn't about taking choice s away from people. But that doesn't mean that Debian can't make it's own choices and ask people to find what they want elsewhere.
I think it makes sense; I think that's actually something that makes Debian kind of cool; is that you can give your system its own (your) personality by modifying the sources.list file.
I don't think I really understood the possibilites until I discovered apt-get.org. It's a great concept, that you can "tune in" to the types of software that you want/need, and it doesn't all necessarily have to come from the official Debian servers.
This might give Debian users more choices, actually.
I was thinking about the multiplication of debian mirrors lately and the security implication of having a mirror rooted by some evil doers...
How is it actually managed? I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:
When you first install debian, you do it from a safe source (let's say a CD like OpenBSD or a mirror you _really_ trust). All the packages come with the public key of the maintainer and all package are signed by the package maintainer. Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a packa
I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:
Not crazy; in progress. The debian-keyring package contains all the maintainers' public keys, packages are already signed, and I believe dpkg has already been modified to have the ability to verify the signatures. The whole thing will be turned on Real Soon Now; I think it's supposed to be in place for the release of Sarge.
Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a package you'll get a message like SSH would give:
the key for package "bla"
The keyring package has a maintainer, who signs it with his key, whose public half is in the keyring. Bootstrapping the whole system is a bit of an issue for the security-paranoid, but once you get past that, it should work fine.
Well if Debian DOES remove non-free I hope someone will set up a rouge server someplace to hold all non-free debian packages that developers choose to package. There are SOME non free packages that I will run (such as SETI@HOME) because they are usefull, or interresting and I can agree with the providers reasons for not releasing source. And SOME packages are only considered non free because of political bullshit anyway.
Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
Compare it to the current situtation, where the same maintainers use the same keyring and the same servers and the same development boxes and the same mailing lists and the same archive maintenance facilities and the same build daemo
Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
Yes. The script performs a function and allows others to modify that functionality and redistribute their modifications. It requires no non-free software, and can run on a 100% DFSG-compliant system. The other cannot run without non-free software, period.
If the program is DFSG-compliant, and requires no DFSG-compliant software to function, it belongs in main.
If the program is DFSG-complaint, and cannot run without n
Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
That's a bit like saying vegetarian food isn't actually suitable for vegetarians if the vegetables used to make it were grown on a farm that raises animals; or someone who works in the factory that made it, or the shop assistant who t
Your idea is a very noble one, but I have to ask you a few questions:
Right now, I can use 'reportbug' to report problems related to:
main
contrib
non-free
non-US/main
non-US/contrib
non-US/non-free
How would that tool keep on working, if contrib and non-free (not to mention the non-US stuff) would be handled by a completely separate team? Hint: it won't. Bugzilla already fails to work on Gnome products, because upstream regularly ignores reports from Debian users, claiming that they don't have
I don't think it's a good idea for Debian to totally divest itself of non-free software. The fact remains that non-free software is useful for large numbers of people. It would irritate them if they were too greatly inconvenienced.
I am not, however, disagreeing with this post. I think it would be beneficial for Debian to concentrate exclusively on a core composed of free software. I'm simply stating that any offshoot of Debian dealing with non-free software must cooperate closely with the core project to b
Here's another thought, and it's essentially costless: lobby upstream developers whose software is non-free to relicense DFSG compliant. The worst they can say is no.
Well, of course that's been happening for years. The fact that non-free is a little farther away will only make it easier.
I don't think it's a good idea for Debian to totally divest itself of non-free software. The fact remains that non-free software is useful for large numbers of people.
It wouldn't be a big deal. Right now there are several repositories that host.debs of packages that Debian won't carry, even in the non-free tree. Things like MP3 encoders that have potential patent restrictions, or libdvdcss, which may violate provisions of the DMCA.
Most users of Debian want to use those other packages, so they just a
couldn't you just set it up so that non-free.debian.org or whatever just pointed to the real non-free site that was run by whatever organization decided to run the non-free stuff. Or would providing a url that worked with existing sources.list's be too much like debian endorsing non free software?
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum.
-- D. Gries
Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:5, Interesting)
When I created the original Debian Social Contract, non-free wouldn't have been self-supporting. But we've had this hypocracy about non-free since then. Non-free is not officially part of Debian, but is maintained as part of Debian, using all of the same facilities and within the same organization. Debian can now afford to be 100% Free Software and no exceptions, and can put non-free somewhere else with people who care about it. APT will handle this very easily, there's no overhead to the user except perhaps to change /etc/apt/sources.list once, which we can do for them with a script.
Bruce
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
If you have a problem with it being a script to allow access to non-free packages, write one that will add any apt source to the list, instead of just one for non-free.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:5, Interesting)
Some time before non-free disappears from Debian's mirrors, we'd make some base package require a package containing an installation script that looks to see if the user is presently using the non-free repository. So, everyone who runs an upgrade would get this package, and it's script would run. If the user is using the non-free repository, the user gets a note that it's moving, and is asked if he'd like to reset his apt choices to the new location of non-free or to do without non-free from then on, in which case we'd present the list of packages that would be lost from the system.
Debian isn't about taking choice s away from people. But that doesn't mean that Debian can't make it's own choices and ask people to find what they want elsewhere.
Bruce
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
Sounds like a good use for the VRMS [debian.org] package.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think I really understood the possibilites until I discovered apt-get.org. It's a great concept, that you can "tune in" to the types of software that you want/need, and it doesn't all necessarily have to come from the official Debian servers.
This might give Debian users more choices, actually.
On a totally unrelated topic... (Score:2)
How is it actually managed?
I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:
When you first install debian, you do it from a safe source (let's say a CD like OpenBSD or a mirror you _really_ trust). All the packages come with the public key of the maintainer and all package are signed by the package maintainer.
Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a packa
Re:On a totally unrelated topic... (Score:2)
I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:
Not crazy; in progress. The debian-keyring package contains all the maintainers' public keys, packages are already signed, and I believe dpkg has already been modified to have the ability to verify the signatures. The whole thing will be turned on Real Soon Now; I think it's supposed to be in place for the release of Sarge.
Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a package you'll get a message like SSH would give: the key for package "bla"
Re:On a totally unrelated topic... (Score:2)
But how will the keyring package be signed/verified?
Re:On a totally unrelated topic... (Score:2)
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare it to the current situtation, where the same maintainers use the same keyring and the same servers and the same development boxes and the same mailing lists and the same archive maintenance facilities and the same build daemo
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
Yes. The script performs a function and allows others to modify that functionality and redistribute their modifications. It requires no non-free software, and can run on a 100% DFSG-compliant system. The other cannot run without non-free software, period.
If the program is DFSG-compliant, and requires no DFSG-compliant software to function, it belongs in main.
If the program is DFSG-complaint, and cannot run without n
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:1)
That's a bit like saying vegetarian food isn't actually suitable for vegetarians if the vegetables used to make it were grown on a farm that raises animals; or someone who works in the factory that made it, or the shop assistant who t
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:3, Interesting)
Bruce
The practicability of non-free.org in doubt (Score:2)
Your idea is a very noble one, but I have to ask you a few questions:
How would that tool keep on working, if contrib and non-free (not to mention the non-US stuff) would be handled by a completely separate team? Hint: it won't. Bugzilla already fails to work on Gnome products, because upstream regularly ignores reports from Debian users, claiming that they don't have
Re:The practicability of non-free.org in doubt (Score:1)
When a package is installed it may include a file /usr/share/reportbug/$package, and that will be used as the text.
This allows non-free packages to have their bugs reported in an integrated fashion.
3.How would people be assured of the QA processes used by a non-Debian produced contrib and non-free repository?
Agreed this couldn't be handled. However I don't see a problem with this. How are people assured of the quality of random
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:1)
I am not, however, disagreeing with this post. I think it would be beneficial for Debian to concentrate exclusively on a core composed of free software. I'm simply stating that any offshoot of Debian dealing with non-free software must cooperate closely with the core project to b
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
Well, of course that's been happening for years. The fact that non-free is a little farther away will only make it easier.
Bruce
We've been doing that for ages. (Score:2)
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
I don't think it's a good idea for Debian to totally divest itself of non-free software. The fact remains that non-free software is useful for large numbers of people.
It wouldn't be a big deal. Right now there are several repositories that host .debs of packages that Debian won't carry, even in the non-free tree. Things like MP3 encoders that have potential patent restrictions, or libdvdcss, which may violate provisions of the DMCA.
Most users of Debian want to use those other packages, so they just a
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:1)
BTW, your picture on your site makes you look much more sane than you did in Revolution OS.
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)
As a user, I only expect that sending non-free off to a separate organization would cause quality regression. I don't see an advantage in it.
Debian has a number of individuals who maintain non-free packages. Aren't the packages already with people who care about them?
APT might, but Debian's quality doesn't come from APT. It comes from Debian -- the organization, the policies, the developers, the
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:1)
My question is why would vendors want such an organization when they can easily host their own apt archives?
Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:2)