about non-free archive

[Taketoshi Sano <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>]

佐野＠浜松です。

最近 Debian Project のほうで投票が進められている non-free archive の
扱いについて。

私の考えは以下の Dale Scheetz のメールに述べられている意見と同じです。
つまり、non-free area は DFSG の理想を普及・推進するために存在しており
可能であれば DFSG 互換なライセンスへの変更を働きかけていくべきである、
ということです。

ただし、DFSG を尊重するということから、DFSG 非互換なライセンスを持つ
ソフトウェアと敵対しなければならないという結論が直ちに導けるとは
考えていません。

パッケージメンテナーが必要だと感じ、かつ意欲があるなら、DFSG 非互換な
パッケージについても non-free なパッケージとして Debian Project の
 ftp サーバーから配布することを認めるべきだと思っています。

あくまでも個人的な考えとしてですが、DFSG の思想を広めていくために、
non-free なパッケージについても機会があれば DFSG 互換なライセンスへの
変更を作者に打診していくべきだと思っています。

なお以下のメールは debian-vote ML に流れたものです。
正確な URI は調べていませんが、http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0006/ 以下で
読むことができるはずです。

In <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000617084016.278S-100000@dwarf>,
 on "Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:36:46 +0000 (GMT)",
 with "Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)",
  Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> さん wrote:

dwarf> non-free (admittedly a misnomer) HAS promoted license changes that have
dwarf> moved packages from non-free to the main disto. This IS the purpose of
dwarf> this clause, and it DOES work, so why insist that we destroy a working
dwarf> process simply because you don't understand that it does not conflict with
dwarf> Debian ideals but only with your ideals (or your understanding of how this
dwarf> clause effects your ideals)
dwarf> 
dwarf> The fact that this clause can be (and apparently is by you and others)
dwarf> confusing, given our professed dedication to free software ideals, and the
dwarf> moral dilema created by the misunderstanding of this term "non-free"
dwarf> doesn't mean we should change any of the wording, and it certainly doesn't
dwarf> mean that we should change the principles represented by this clause.
dwarf> 
dwarf> Just as the term Free, when applied to DFSG compliant software, can be
dwarf> confusing doesn't mean that we should necessarily change the name to Open
dwarf> Source. This is specially true if the term Open Source is no longer
dwarf> defined by the DFSG due to "prudent" changes made by the OSI. Software
dwarf> freedom is our goal, not just the ability to view source, and a reduction
dwarf> of software freedom principles to just the availability of the source for
dwarf> review, defeats the more important aspects of what we view as software
dwarf> freedom. I submit that removing this clause because you object to the term
dwarf> non-free because you misunderstand it is a mistake, just as allowing
dwarf> software freedom to devolve to only source availability has clearly been
dwarf> a mistake. The non-free clause provides freedoms that would otherwise be
dwarf> unavailable. Removing it denigrates all the great efforts by some
dwarf> developers to bring non-DFSG compliant software into compliance, or at
dwarf> least into some kind of usefullness to our users. This doesn't mean that
dwarf> our goal is in any way the production of more non-free software. It is, in
dwarf> fact just the opposite goal that this clause supports.
dwarf> 
dwarf> Debian is all that is within our control. The principles by which we
dwarf> intend to reach our goals of total free software are, if not clearly, at
dwarf> least correctly (in spirit) deliniated in our Social Contract and any
dwarf> substantive change to those principles undermines Debian's ability to
dwarf> reach the goals we have set for ourselves.
dwarf> 
dwarf> I say again: "Vote no to any modifications of the spirit of this document"
dwarf> 
dwarf> My belief is that even seemingly inoccuous changes to wording will result
dwarf> in a "slippery slope" effect that could very quickly undermine those
dwarf> principles of Debian that make it such a spectacular distro that everyone
dwarf> has the freedom to contribute to. All of the proposals I have seen so far,
dwarf> appear to me to change the fundamental principles on which the "non-free"
dwarf> clause is founded. I believe that this clause, as well as all the other
dwarf> clauses in the social contract require that we adhere to them as written
dwarf> and decided by BP and the developers resident at the time it was created.
dwarf> 
dwarf> Under the terms by which Debian has opperated in the past this includes
dwarf> support for "non-free" as described. I have no difficulty with offering
dwarf> addenda to the social contract that clarify this position or give the
dwarf> principle more flexibility by indicating that FTP is not the only protocol
dwarf> that Debian might agree to use in support of this effort, as well as
dwarf> addenda which clarify the meaning of non-free in this Debian context, so
dwarf> it is easier to understand why this clause is valuable to the execution
dwarf> and completion of our overall goals of software freedom. 
dwarf> 
dwarf> While I see such activities, within our current constitution, as being
dwarf> appropriate ways to debate the debatable aspects of the social contract, I
dwarf> will continue to object to roll backs and changes to the wording of the
dwarf> social contract that change the funamental character of this, or any other
dwarf> clause in the contract. 
dwarf> 
dwarf> Users ARE members of our community. I DID sign this contract with them, as
dwarf> much as I did with all the "code contributing" members of the community,
dwarf> and I will only agree to changes in this contract that I and the rest of
dwarf> the community (including Users) agree still meet the original spirit of
dwarf> this contract. I submit (again) that a constitutional referendum is not
dwarf> the appropriate way to "force" such change over the objection of the
dwarf> signers of the original contract, and I encourage everyone to vote against
dwarf> such proposed referenda.
dwarf> 
dwarf> non-free will "die" and be no more when there is no more software that a
dwarf> Debian developer is willing to package. That day has not arrived and
dwarf> attempting to arbitrarily arrive at that particular goal limits the
dwarf> freedom of our developers to seek the software freedom we all desire by
dwarf> packaging up useful DFSG-non-compliant software that is otherwise free to
dwarf> distribute from our archives. Providing a means for such non-compliant
dwarf> software to redeem itself through more correct licensing is the whole
dwarf> purpose behind the existance of the non-free clause in the first place.
dwarf> Removing it blocks one avenue of proven success at freeing software
dwarf> licenses that we consider less than totally free, and therein lies my
dwarf> objections.
dwarf> 
dwarf> I maintain no non-free packages myself, although I have done so in the
dwarf> past, but I will defend the right of any developer to deliver non-free
dwarf> components to the archives as called out in the social contract because I
dwarf> believe such activity aids us in obtaining our goals.
dwarf> 
dwarf> Even if there are software components that continue to remain
dwarf> non-compliant for ever and ever, forcing Debian to maintain non-free
dwarf> indefinately, I still see that this feature has produced, and has
dwarf> the potential to continue to produce DFSG compliant software, from
dwarf> releases that were not compliant to begin with. This fits my goals for
dwarf> Debian and is clearly an ethical and logical means to approach total
dwarf> software freedom.

--
     ＃ (わたしのおうちは浜松市、「夜のお菓子」で有名さ。)
    <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp> : Taketoshi Sano (佐野　武俊)