Debian Bug report logs - #537941
vrms: Don't list GDL packages, but do list .NET applications

version graph

Package: vrms; Maintainer for vrms is Debian vrms Maintainers <vrms-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>; Source for vrms is src:vrms.

Reported by: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:15:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in versions vrms/1.15, vrms/1.14

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian vrms Maintainers <debian-vrms@lists.gag.com>:
Bug#537941; Package vrms. (Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:15:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian vrms Maintainers <debian-vrms@lists.gag.com>. (Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:15:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: vrms: Don't list GDL packages, but do list .NET applications
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:11:49 -0400
Package: vrms
Version: 1.15
Severity: normal

To be more faithful to Richard Stallman, vrms should (either by default
or at least with a "--fsf-worldview" flag) try to follow Richard's opinion
rather than Debian's:
- stop listing GDL packages (e.g. gcc-4.3-doc and emacs22-common-non-dfsg),
  which Richard would clearly consider as Free.
- list packages that depend on Mono (e.g. f-spot and tomboy) as "vulnerable"
  or something like that (they're clearly Free, but RMS considers they are
  potentially vulnerable in a similar way to patented algorithms).  This
  is related to earlier requests to add a category for "patent encumbered"
  libraries, whose status as Free or non-Free is debatable (e.g. they will
  be Free as soon as the patent runs out).


        Stefan


-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CH.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CH.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-- no debconf information




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian vrms Maintainers <debian-vrms@lists.gag.com>:
Bug#537941; Package vrms. (Wed, 19 May 2010 11:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian vrms Maintainers <debian-vrms@lists.gag.com>. (Wed, 19 May 2010 11:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 537941@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <537941@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: vrms: RMS would not be delighted
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:17:54 +0100
Package: vrms
Version: 1.14
Followup-For: Bug #537941

On a similar note, suggesting that RMS would be delighted by a system
with no non-DFSG packages is false, and would best be removed until
such time as you can implement --fsf-worldview or similar. Two good
reasons:

1. RMS would be unhappy that non-DFSG-free packages because of
   GFDL-with-invariant-sections are reported as non-free.

2. RMS would be unhappy that a Debian system with only DFSG-packages
   was reported as free, because he knows about the grandfathered
   exceptions that still exist in the kernel.

This may sound like tiny things. IANADD, but I have been using it and
Ubuntu heavily for 6 years now, and value it; on the other hand, I am,
since two years ago, a GNU maintainer. I often see animosity between
the two camps, which to me is ridiculous, and I try to promote
harmony. After a recent discussion on an internal GNU list that
included some remarks about Debian being non-free, I want to mention
vrms as a practical way in which Debian tries to give users the tools
to monitor their use of non-free software. I fear however that in its
current state it might be seen by GNU maintainers as another example
of Debian twisting the meaning of "free". (I would reiterate that this
is not a view I share.)

A little more sensitivity in the wording could possibly make vrms a
valuable point of contact between the two projects: for example, there
might be GNU maintainers willing to implement some of the more complex
functionality for vrms that has been suggested in other bugs, to make
it a more useful and discerning tool.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.4
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-- no debconf information




Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sat Apr 19 02:43:12 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.