Re: software distribution criteria -- The OpenBSD case

[MJ Ray]

John Darrington <address@hidden> wrote:
> [...] I had been told that
> GNS didn't carry anything that wasn't currently in Debian.  If your
> references are accurate, then this information must have been incorrect.

Please, check the references for yourself if you doubt them.  In god
we trust - all others bring data.

As I understand it, GNS is a stripped+modified version of Ubuntu's
long term support release, so it will carry many things which aren't
currently in Debian.  Ubuntu has added some things which were not
acceptable to debian (some you'll like, such as FDL'd manuals, and
some you won't, such as Mozilla Firefox) and generally made many small
changes which have neve been included in debian.

DD Anthony Towns does occasional comparison studies, if you want to
learn more about the practical differences between debian and Ubuntu:
http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/debian/ubuntu

> [...] It's OK to mention an antagonist
> organisation in a discussion paper where you also state the reasons
> why that organisation is considered unethical, especially if that organisation
> already has a high profile.  But it would be counter-productive, even
> irresponsible, to give free publicity to such an organisation.

Making this less abstract: is mentioning non-free software OK if you
also state that the software is non-free/unethical, especially if that
software already has a high profile?  Or is it necessary to state the
reasons why it is non-free software each time it is mentioned?

I ask this because I think we now have both nearly all the reasons
(due to research done during the non-free removal votes and subsequent
package evaluations) and the technical capability (due to debtags) to
state the reasons why a piece of non-free software tracked by debian
is non-free, every time it is mentioned by debian web sites and debian
package management tools.  Filling in the gaps and connecting those
two data sets (reasons and package data) would not be difficult, but
I've not really tried to promote doing that because I dislike spending
time working on non-free software.  If it would make FS supporters
happier with debian if it stated the reasons, instead of just
displaying the big red "non-free" label, I would work on it.

>      Not if that publicity is designed to publicise the non-free nature of
>      it.  Notice that the FSF and sometimes GNU announces and explains why
>      software is non-free-software, like in the "Java trap".
>
> In general, I agree.  But FSF only mentions these things in the
> context I've described above.  It would be totally contrary if the FSF
> said these things, and then linked to Java-trapped projects which it's
> possible to use in conjunction with GNU Software.

So is linking also a problem?  Why?  Not linking a project is not
usually a significant barrier to finding it.  For example, in
Iceweasel, you just highlight the word, right-click and select "Search
Web for..." IIRC and you'll find most software fairly easily.

Thanks for your explanations,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/