Non-free packages

LB06 · 2004-10-17 17:57:08

Imo the devs/turs should decide whether to include closed source deps.

LB06 · 2004-10-17 18:04:58

I have to say I am quite disappointed by this narrow minded view. I always thought of Arch Linux as a pragmatic distro that isn't strictly bound to open source apps, like debian.

Btw Zeppelin you really need to work on your attitude.

rehcra · 2004-10-17 18:24:46

Dusty wrote:

Unfortunately, you've already proven a lack of any ability that might even resemble the ability to think.

It seems you are not able to either read or think. My arguments are 100% logical.

The people that make closed source software get paid to do it
(...) Was it slave labour?.

I didn't expect you to be so dump. Judging by your statement, your IQ is less that 80. The users are the slaves, not developers.

Saying that there's nothing wrong with closed-source software is equal to saying that there's nothing wrong with slavery.
This is the dumbest argument... totally backwards.

This is the only sentence of my post you actually refered to. This proves that your memory is not greater than bug's one.
Even though you refered to just 10% of my post, you totally misunderstood this part. And I'm not going to explain what eacg and every word of my post means, because I'm sure you wouldn't understand it even if you tried for million years.

(...) send your donations.

There is no obligation to pay for free software under any circumstances. Open software developers don't write code for me, they do it for themselves - they like what they do. If I like a program it's only my good will that I donate the OS developer.

rehcra · 2004-10-17 18:32:17

Imo the devs/turs should decide whether to include closed source deps.

Okay, they make the decision. But we can have some influence on this?
I'd like to be a tur but this will never happen because most of you don't tolerate my point of view and couldn't stand open-source-only repository.

LB06 wrote:

I always thought of Arch Linux as a pragmatic distro that isn't strictly bound to open source apps, like debian.

Arch don't have to be bound to open source apps, but it should give some choice to users. There are many people who are strongly opposed to using closed-source software and what you are doing is just annoying and inconvenient for them.
A linux distro which "is not bound to open source software" is just as political as debian is.

Btw Zeppelin you really need to work on your attitude.

I fully understand Zeppelin and don't think he has to "work on his attitude.

Mith · 2004-10-17 18:43:02

rehcra wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Unfortunately, you've already proven a lack of any ability that might even resemble the ability to think.
It seems you are not able to either read or think. My arguments are 100% logical.
The people that make closed source software get paid to do it
(...) Was it slave labour?.
I didn't expect you to be so dump. Judging by your statement, your IQ is less that 80. The users are the slaves, not developers.
Saying that there's nothing wrong with closed-source software is equal to saying that there's nothing wrong with slavery.
This is the dumbest argument... totally backwards.
This is the only sentence of my post you actually refered to. This proves that your memory is not greater than bug's one.
Even though you refered to just 10% of my post, you totally misunderstood this part. And I'm not going to explain what eacg and every word of my post means, because I'm sure you wouldn't understand it even if you tried for million years.
(...) send your donations.
There is no obligation to pay for free software under any circumstances. Open software developers don't write code for me, they do it for themselves - they like what they do. If I like a program it's only my good will that I donate the OS developer.

HAHA
that was funny and insulting )
seriously rehcra there's no need in being so rude.. rude in a dumb way..
You say the users are slaves because of the programs they use?? Like who forces those programs upon them??? When I am at work and HAVE TO USE word etc. then I am a slave to my work and society that forces me to work to get along! You say your statements are 100% logical ...
Let me quote something from you

I'm not for completely banning closed software. But I do thing there is something wrong with closed software (and those who write it). It would be best to force software companies to release their source code let's say after 10 years.

So on the one side you want to get closed software out of arch packages and on the other side you don't want to ban it completely.. probably because you still consider it usefull which would sort of contradict the wish of getting it out!
You want to force companies to open their code.. * lol * I really think it's a very good idea! BUT forcing is just the WRONG word.. who are you to force someone? I just have a great personal disliking for forcing something/someone to do stuff.. it's just wrong and morally/mentally low

Mr Green · 2004-10-17 18:54:53

I get bored with people coming to Arch trying to change it into Gentoo

Xentac · 2004-10-17 18:59:00

Mr Green wrote:

I get bored with people coming to Arch trying to change it into Gentoo

It happens more often than you'd think. I like to think of it less as "into Gentoo" and more "into their own image". Everyone has the killer idea that will make Arch the greatest thing since sliced bread. That thing just has to be implemented.

rehcra · 2004-10-17 19:09:37

that was funny and insulting )

Totally agree.

seriously rehcra there's no need in being so rude.. rude in a dumb way..

I wouldn't be so rude hadn't dusty said what he said.

You say your statements are 100% logical ... (...)
So on the one side you want to get closed software out of arch packages and on the other side you don't want to ban it completely.. probably because you still consider it usefull which would sort of contradict the wish of getting it out!

No, I don't use any closed-source software. I'm the one to decide what's useful for me. That's not my wish not to use this software, that's reality.
I don't wan't to get rid of closed software Arch packages. I just want to remove the DEPENDENCY on them.

You want to force companies to open their code.. * lol * (...)
morally/mentally low

By forcing I mean introducing a law which would work the same way as patent law do. In my eyes

closed source==patent

. There should be the same rules in both cases (expiration after finite time).

soniX · 2004-10-17 19:17:26

whats up with all the badmouthing !!!!
we are all friends here arent we?
Even though we disagree on certain things (as this thread clearly shows) there is no reason to act like a bunch of angry kids.

This thread is going nowhere fast!

contrasutra · 2004-10-17 19:17:52

No, I don't use any closed-source software. I'm the one to decide what's useful for me. That's not my wish not to use this software, that's reality.

Sure you do. Your BIOS is most likely closed source. So is the software in your car. Many other examples as well.

By forcing I mean introducing a law which would work the same way as patent law do. In my eyes
closed source==patent
. There should be the same rules in both cases (expiration after finite time).

Err...code is copyrighted (it makes no sense to patent it). Therefore it does expire and go into the public domain (both open and closed source). The system is just a bit fux0red in the US, and copyright is 70 years.

rehcra · 2004-10-17 19:30:18

Sure you do. Your BIOS is most likely closed source.

Ok, you caught me. But this is the only closed source software I use (or more exactly my computer uses).

So is the software in your car.

I don't own a car (because of the software:))

By forcing I mean introducing a law which would work the same way as patent law do. In my eyes
closed source==patent
. There should be the same rules in both cases (expiration after finite time).
Err...code is copyrighted (it makes no sense to patent it). Therefore it does expire and go into the public domain (both open and closed source). The system is just a bit fux0red in the US, and copyright is 70 years.

IMHO source code shares more with an invention than with art. It should be patented, not copyrighted. But that's my personal opinion and please don't argue about that. The law I'm talking about would force to open software after 10 years. This would benefit everybody.

rehcra · 2004-10-17 19:35:53

Richard Stallman wrote:

Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.
Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.
Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.

Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:
Name calling.
Owners use smear words such as ``piracy'' and ``theft'', as well as expert terminology such as ``intellectual property'' and ``damage'', to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public---a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.

Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don't directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.
Exaggeration.
Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.

A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it kindly.
The law.
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality---yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.

This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.

It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.
Natural rights.
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else---or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)

To those who propose this as an ethical axiom---the author is more important than you---I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.

But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.

One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.

But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.

The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.

As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only permits a system of copyright and does not require one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress---not to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.

The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be justified for the public's sake.
Economics.
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to production of more software.

Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the subject. It is based on a valid goal---satisfying the users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.

But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes that ``production of software'' is what we want, whether the software has owners or not.

People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.

This is true for any kind of material object---whether or not it has an owner does not directly affect what it is, or what you can do with it if you acquire it.

But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something---but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

rehcra · 2004-10-18 06:10:54

Another link to another great page...
http://www.gnu.org/fun/humor.html

rehcra · 2004-10-18 06:13:08

Yet another one (this time to a commercial site):
http://www.mslinux.org/

Haakon · 2004-10-19 17:19:06

It's too bad many of the people who agree with me in principle have no debate skills. It does not further the cause for freedom to speculate on the IQ of your opponent and to use name-calling and harsh language against them. Who needs enemies when you have friends like that, right?

Free software is a just and important cause. You should fight for it. But stepping all over people who don't agree with you will not make them agree with you. Act from reason!

It's a bit sad that a lot of people read Stallman's teachings and forward them mindlessly. You should read them, and then consider them, make up your mind rationally. Argue with yourself to make up an honest opinion. Argue with what Stallman writes, to form an opinion of it. Don't just forward it along with a derogatory description of whoever doesn't instantly agree with you. You will not persuade anybody that way, you'll only create a distance.

I don't want ArchLinux to be a "pragmatic" distro -- I want it as free as possible, and I want to spread awareness. But more than that, I want freedom of choice as much as the rest of you do. As part of that freedom, however, I want to make it easy to choose free software when choice exists, and to choose not to use anything when only proprietary alternatives exist. This is a personal thing for me, and I don't want to push it on everybody, but I want there to be mechanisms in place that excludes proprietary software if I should want that. I have suggested how the License field can be used for this, or how division into repositories can be used for this. I think this reasoning is fair and doesn't get in anybody's way. I hope the derogatory zealotry elsewhere in this thread does not put this reasoning in a bad light -- I, nor anybody else who through years of consideration believe software freedom is right for them, want anything to do with those mindless zealots who in effect works against us all. Let's hope they grow up. :-)

phrakture · 2004-10-19 18:39:32

Let me begin by saying this:
If I never had to worry about money ever again and had the choice to do whatever I please, I would be a logician - a professional debater, so-to-speak. Read that as you will, but I love this stuff.

That said, I must point out that rehcra has done something which we, in the business, call ad hominem - "to the man" in english. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy which is used by those who can no longer rebuttle in an arguement. If anyone grew up with siblings, you know how this goes:

"That's my seat, I wanna sit there"
"You moved, it's my seat now"
"I had it first"
"You're stupid"

Yes, I'm sorry to say, but this fallacy is most commonly employed by children. That is not to say that adults do not use it from time to time. My point is that personal attacks imply a person does not know how to ontinue their arguement. Let's analyze what went on between Dusty and rehcra a bit back:

Dusty: "Your arguements are illogical" (paraphrased)
rehcra: "You have an IQ of 80" (paraphrased)

While Dusty's comment may have seemed rude, I must point out that he was talking about your arguements and not you. Returning this with a personal attack on Dusty is what I defined above as ad hominem - it was a personal attack because you had no way to respond to what he said. It's that simple.

That said, I must make it a point to say that the "Free Software" movement is founded on the notion of "Free Choice" - if you remove the foundation from anything, the structure crumbles - removing free choice will, in effect, void free software.
For this matter, if you do not want to use closed source software, do not use it - you have a choice. Don't download it, don't look at it, don't even think about it. However, it is no one else's responsibility to make this choice for you, for that would void the notion of free choice. Forcing developers and maintainers to make the choice for you and all other users is not something one does if they value free choice. Make the choice for yourself, and no one else. When I decide I like Ford automobiles because they are American made and provide jobs to Americans, I don't try to get a law passed so that no one else can buy anything but a Ford car/truck - I buy one for myself. If someone else wants to buy a German or Japanese car, so be it, I will not force their hand because they have a right to choose for themselves

rehcra · 2004-10-19 19:36:24

phrakture wrote:

Dusty: "Your arguements are illogical" (paraphrased)
rehcra: "You have an IQ of 80" (paraphrased)
While Dusty's comment may have seemed rude, I must point out that he was talking about your arguements and not you. Returning this with a personal attack on Dusty is what I defined above as ad hominem - it was a personal attack because you had no way to respond to what he said. It's that simple.

Phrakture, I agree with most things you said in your post, but you missed the truth a bit.
Let me quote the REAL sentences:

Dusty wrote:

Unfortunately, you've already proven a lack of any ability that might even resemble the ability to think.

rehcra wrote:

Judging by your statement, your IQ is less that 80.

As you can see, it was the other way round. Dusty said I'm not able to think - this personal insult is obviously false.
On the other hand, I was talking about his statement. If you are good at logics, you'll agree that I haven't said anything definite about Dusty's IQ - I only said his statement suggests the level of his IQ.

I know you have known Dusty longer than me and that has done much to Arch linux but you shouldn't be unfair. I think it's clear Dusty insulted me as a person and you can't deny it. I admit this made me very angry and indeed I said some things I shoudn't say. I'm sorry for that. But the fault lays on Dusty's side.

And about the choice you mention, let me quote some things:

rehcra wrote:

Arch don't have to be bound to open source apps, but it should give some choice to users. There are many people who are strongly opposed to using closed-source software and what you are doing is just annoying and inconvenient for them.

I mean having closed-source software as dependecies either reduces the choice user has or it is inconvienient to him (Why does arch by default support those who use closed-source software rather than those who don't? Sure you can compile your own packages, but couldn't this be the other way round?)

Mith wrote:

I'm not for completely banning closed software. But I do thing there is something wrong with closed software (and those who write it). It would be best to force software companies to release their source code let's say after 10 years.
So on the one side you want to get closed software out of arch packages and on the other side you don't want to ban it completely.. probably because you still consider it usefull which would sort of contradict the wish of getting it out!

These sentences describe my idea of compromise, but then Mith assumes I must use closed-source software (which is not true).

So please, don't put words in my mouth I didn't say. Don't assume what software I use, because you can't know that. Don't assume I'm a free-software fanatic because of my dislike of closed sources.

xerxes2 · 2004-10-19 19:47:38

phrakture has just made him self guilty of a history rewrite,
I suggest you go back and read this thread again,

and as for choice in software (or other intellectual matters)
what if there is no choice,
what skall you do then?
in the software case F/OSS has taken over 20 years to come true,
if people have woken up earlier maybe we haven't been trashed all that long,

phrakture · 2004-10-19 19:53:28

rehcra wrote:

Let me quote the REAL sentences:
Dusty wrote:
Unfortunately, you've already proven a lack of any ability that might even resemble the ability to think.
rehcra wrote:
Judging by your statement, your IQ is less that 80.
As you can see, it was the other way round. Dusty said I'm not able to think - this personal insult is obviously false.
On the other hand, I was talking about his statement. If you are good at logics, you'll agree that I haven't said anything definite about Dusty's IQ - I only said his statement suggests the level of his IQ.

Ok, I'll agree that I misquoted. However, you may interperate your statement however you wish, it is still a blatant use of ad hominem, which Dusty is guilty of as well. I understand you may not be a native english speaker, but both statements are still targeted at the arguer and not the argument. Your quote does not talk about his statement, but attempts to use it as an insult ("judging by your statement"...)

As far as having closed source as a dependency, please let me know what packages do this - I was not aware this was so. However, if a package depends on a closed source package, it is the fault of the developers - in which case the choice is "use this package and closed source packages" or "don't use this package" - if there are options available to replace a dependency with an open source one, I'm sure it would be done.

Again, I apologize for misquoting, I did not refer to the posts while writing mine. However, both parties are now equally guilty. If a person truely wants to sway people to their side, positive reinfocement is a much better idea.

contrasutra · 2004-10-19 20:19:49

We're arguing free software on a linux forum. Preaching to the converted for gods sake!

Most of the people who argue about "open source" here probably can't even program. Pointless bickering, not to mention 1000 rehashed arguments.

phrakture · 2004-10-19 20:25:15

contrasutra wrote:

Most of the people who argue about "open source" here probably can't even program. Pointless bickering, not to mention 1000 rehashed arguments.

Well said. There are people who know othing about WHAT is actually gained from open sourcing [have you looked at some of these projects recently? it's almost conterproductive to try to use their code]

rehcra · 2004-10-19 20:50:47

phrakture wrote:

As far as having closed source as a dependency, please let me know what packages do this - I was not aware this was so.

Actually there is one package that I'm aware of which has such a dependency. It's mplayer which depends on the package "codecs", containing windows propertial codecs. This seems to be an artificial dependency, because mplayer can work without these codecs as well (it can use ffmpeg, for example).
On the other hand, some package maintainers are a bit lazy IMHO. There are packages which are difficult to compile from source (need patches), but have a precompiled version available on their website (one I can remember is cube fps; cvsup is strange because PKGBUILD downloads a package fromf archlinux.org). Arch should have some policy which would force packagers to use sources in such cases.

I apologise Dusty. Perhaps if I used the right arguments I would convince him not to be so careless about openness of software.

rehcra · 2004-10-19 20:55:56

contrasutra wrote:

Most of the people who argue about "open source" here probably can't even program. Pointless bickering, not to mention 1000 rehashed arguments.

That makes me think. If I couldn't program, I wouldn't probably care about source code. But I do care, not only about whether it's open de jure, but also de facto.

phrakture · 2004-10-19 20:57:10

hmmm well, perhaps the maintainers are having a difficult time with ffmpeg - perhaps you could make a working pkgbuild and submit it... then both ffmpeg and the windows codecs package could be changed to "provide=('base-codecs')" or something. this way you could use either....

BTW, what about java? they still haven't open sourced their stuff, do you still use that...

and as for cube, I have a package in my repo below, but was not aware that you could get it from CVS - I will look into that. Currently, my package uses the binaries from cubeengine.com

rehcra · 2004-10-19 21:03:23

phrakture wrote:

hmmm well, perhaps the maintainers are having a difficult time with ffmpeg - perhaps you could make a working pkgbuild and submit it... then both ffmpeg and the windows codecs package could be changed to "provide=('base-codecs')" or something. this way you could use either....

ffmpeg provides a library avcodec, which has some open source codecs implemented. AFAIK, mplayer guys just copied the library to their source code (as most other video projects do). So there's no need to make mplayer dependent on ffmpeg (but perhaps it would be good to do so, so that libavcodec is shared).
"codecs" are just windows dlls packaged. The problem is easy to solve, just replace:

depends=('libmad' 'libungif' 'gtk' 'libvorbis' 'divx4linux' 'cdparanoia' 
         'codecs' 'sdl' 'libjpeg' 'libpng' 'lame' 'libtheora' 'esd')

with

depends=('libmad' 'libungif' 'gtk' 'libvorbis' 'divx4linux' 'cdparanoia' 
         'sdl' 'libjpeg' 'libpng' 'lame' 'libtheora' 'esd')

Arch Linux

#26 2004-10-17 17:57:08

Re: Non-free packages

#27 2004-10-17 18:04:58

Re: Non-free packages

#28 2004-10-17 18:24:46

Re: Non-free packages

#29 2004-10-17 18:32:17

Re: Non-free packages

#30 2004-10-17 18:43:02

Re: Non-free packages

#31 2004-10-17 18:54:53

Re: Non-free packages

#32 2004-10-17 18:59:00

Re: Non-free packages

#33 2004-10-17 19:09:37

Re: Non-free packages

#34 2004-10-17 19:17:26

Re: Non-free packages

#35 2004-10-17 19:17:52

Re: Non-free packages

#36 2004-10-17 19:30:18

Re: Non-free packages

#37 2004-10-17 19:35:53

Re: Non-free packages

#38 2004-10-18 06:10:54

Re: Non-free packages

#39 2004-10-18 06:13:08

Re: Non-free packages

#40 2004-10-19 17:19:06

Re: Non-free packages

#41 2004-10-19 18:39:32

Re: Non-free packages

#42 2004-10-19 19:36:24

Re: Non-free packages

#43 2004-10-19 19:47:38

Re: Non-free packages

#44 2004-10-19 19:53:28

Re: Non-free packages

#45 2004-10-19 20:19:49

Re: Non-free packages

#46 2004-10-19 20:25:15

Re: Non-free packages

#47 2004-10-19 20:50:47

Re: Non-free packages

#48 2004-10-19 20:55:56

Re: Non-free packages

#49 2004-10-19 20:57:10

Re: Non-free packages

#50 2004-10-19 21:03:23

Re: Non-free packages

Board footer