6 ms·

He reacted in the right way, but on the whole my impression is negative. I'm a bit disappointed, because most of Zed's previous rants were humorous, amusing and

He reacted in the right way, but on the whole my impression is negative. I'm a bit disappointed, because most of Zed's previous rants were humorous, amusing and well researched. But in this case he didn't put any effort neither in research nor writing. He'd stumbled upon a dependency bug and, instead of reporting it, he for some reason concluded that it means that Debian is evil and everybody should boycott it. Weird. PS. Excuse me, there was one amusing paragraph in the rant. The one in which he equaled Debian, the most independent and free software obsessed distribution out there, to Microsoft.

blasdel 16y ago
He didn't just stumble upon an overlooked dependency bug — the Debian maintainers intentionally broke their Ruby package years ago because of the legal problems they imagine to exist with using OpenSSL. I don't think it's so out of bounds to compare Debian, the most copyright-license-obsessed distribution out there, to Microsoft.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Maybe it's a name problem. It was said ruby-full provides the full Ruby language, while ruby provides the export-restricted version Debian has to distribute in order not to have police officers knocking down doors. In Python's case (sorry, I am more familiar with Python) there are python and python-minimal packages. They may or may not mean the same as ruby and ruby-full, but their names communicate a similar intention.
  - rue 16y ago
    "ruby-full" did not exist for a long time, nor does it still provide everything in the normal distro. So far as I know, that is, I may be wrong since I stopped paying any attention to what Debian does a few years ago.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    While "police officers knocking down doors" over crypto export restrictions do not exist, that's not what Debian's wankfest over OpenSSL is about. They think that the advertising clause in the OpenSSL license makes it impossible to use with any GPL programs — despite the fact that the OpenSSL developers think it's fine as a platform library and tons of upstream developers of GPL software choose to link against it. In Debian's world, they'll only allow you to use it if you get every contributor to agree to a special exemption clause appended to the GPL. Through their absolute fealty to the most draconian interpretation of the letter of the law, Debian does more to further the cause of software patents and non-free licensing than any other organization. They choose to demonstrate how idiotic such ideas about IP are by implementing them to their fullest — by being idiots.
    - davidw 16y ago
      > Debian does more to further the cause of software patents and non-free licensing than any other organization. Wow. Really? > They choose to demonstrate how idiotic such ideas about IP are by implementing them to their fullest — by being idiots. From the guidelines: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." I for one do not care at all for your rude name calling. For what it's worth, I'm not particularly fond of debian-legal either, but it's entirely possible to express that disagreement without calling everyone who does not see the world as you do "idiots".
      - blasdel 16y ago
        So who else is out there doing the work of enforcing American software patents on the users of the world? Even the BSA doesn't do that! Apple isn't out there enforcing their patent on the truetype hinting bytecode interpreter, but Debian refuses to ship a full version of freetype. The DVD-CCA gave up years ago, but Debian still won't ship a DeCSS implementation. Fraunhofer/Thomson/MPEG-LA only really care about companies shipping hardware, but Debian cares more about FUD and promoting OGG than actual use. None of this shit matters at all when shipping source code, and binaries only matter if both parties are in the US. But the Debian project is out there with jackboots on, doing what they can to take useful freely-licensed software out of distribution. What other organization is doing anything like that? I'm sorry that you find yourself so wrapped up in such an organization, I did not mean to insult you directly, but rather the ideology y'all are applying to make my world a worse place to live. And I would be far more acerbic in a face-to-face conversation. You didn't understand my line of argument centering around idiocy (should have used fewer anaphora) — my point was that the Debian people know that they're being idiots, and that it's the purpose of their actions in this squabble. We all know that software patents are stupid, but Debian's approach is to show the world just how stupid software patents are by fully respecting them, implementing the letter of the law until it is repealed. I think that's a useless and infuriating course of action.
- duairc 16y ago
  Do you have a citation for this?
- cmsj 16y ago
  "imagine".... OpenSSL's incompatibility with GPL is well documented. Check your google :)
  - blasdel 16y ago
    Only Debian considers it to be a problem for GPL software to dynamically link with system versions of OpenSSL. They be loud and obnoxious about it, but they really are the only ones who are stirring up shit. It's only possible to be incompatible if the GPL software ships with a bundled version of OpenSSL and doesn't append an exception to the GPL. The OpenSSL project does not consider it to be a problem at all. The upstream authors that simultaneously link with OpenSSL and use a GPL license obviously don't think it's a problem.
  - cmsj 16y ago
    Blasdel: no that's not true. Even OpenSSL themselves acknowledge there is a problem: http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
    - blasdel 16y ago
      Did you read it?: "(the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of the normal operating system distribution)" Even Debian is not jackass enough to patch SSH to link with NSS or GnuTLS instead.
      - cmsj 16y ago
        I did read it and I see that they are aware that their advertising clause causes problems for distribution and I see them recommending against making GPL software that links to OpenSSL. gem is GPL and links to OpenSSL.
rbanffy 16y ago
> The one in which he equaled Debian, the most independent and free software obsessed distribution out there, to Microsoft. Debian fails to do step 3. Microsoft's routine is "embrace, extend and suffocate" while Debian will never go beyond step 2. And they have the license to keep them honest.
zedshaw 16y ago
I researched it plenty, and since your comment can't point out factual errors in my post, I'll just assume you're a hypocrite. And yes, they embrace and extend. Embrace is taking the package in the first place. Extend is carving it up and patching it so that other companies that choose Debian are forced to either work around their quirks or accept them. That's the exact classic definition.
- cmsj 16y ago
  In FOSS we call this "branch and patch" ;) But seriously, all distros patch things, they have to to make them work well together on the platform in question or to get the features/fixes they need. Look at how much RHEL patches the kernel, or Ubuntu patches GNOME.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    Red Hat backports new drivers and features to ancient kernels because their customers use binary drivers, and Linux does not maintain a stable ABI. It's a shitty but completely respectable position to be in. Canonical forks Gnome because Novell and a cadre of adolescents in western europe still technically control the project. Ubuntu will win eventually and this will stop being an issue. Sane distros patch upstream just enough to make the software build and work. Debian does it to fulfill their ideological goals.
    - cmsj 16y ago
      RH ships older kernels because they release relatively infrequently, and they've had time to QA them (the RH kernel test suite is huge and they run considerable stress tests). They backport features and drivers and fixes because their customers want the stability of well QA'd kernels and the support of newer server hardware and the benefits of fixes made later. One of the older RHELs even went so far as to backport entire subsystems from 2.6 into a 2.4 kernel because they felt overall 2.6 stability was insufficient for their needs. Specific grips with your assertions aside, I think you are too quick to dismiss the ideological goals of FOSS projects - the entire FOSS ecosystem is afterall founded on some pretty seriously ideological goals, particularly Free Software. Open Source exists to dampen these goals and I suspect that a lot of folks now involved in this world are just interested in forking ruby software from github to run on their Mac ;) Disclaimers: I own a Mac, but Linux has been my desktop/server OS of choice for the last decade, and I work as a sysadmin for a Linux distro company. I also write some software that's packaged in most of the distros now, so I feel self-entitled to see this from several very relevant perspectives ;)

blasdel 16y ago

He didn't just stumble upon an overlooked dependency bug — the Debian maintainers intentionally broke their Ruby package years ago because of the legal problems they imagine to exist with using OpenSSL. I don't think it's so out of bounds to compare Debian, the most copyright-license-obsessed distribution out there, to Microsoft.

rbanffy 16y ago
Maybe it's a name problem. It was said ruby-full provides the full Ruby language, while ruby provides the export-restricted version Debian has to distribute in order not to have police officers knocking down doors. In Python's case (sorry, I am more familiar with Python) there are python and python-minimal packages. They may or may not mean the same as ruby and ruby-full, but their names communicate a similar intention.
- rue 16y ago
  "ruby-full" did not exist for a long time, nor does it still provide everything in the normal distro. So far as I know, that is, I may be wrong since I stopped paying any attention to what Debian does a few years ago.
- blasdel 16y ago
  While "police officers knocking down doors" over crypto export restrictions do not exist, that's not what Debian's wankfest over OpenSSL is about. They think that the advertising clause in the OpenSSL license makes it impossible to use with any GPL programs — despite the fact that the OpenSSL developers think it's fine as a platform library and tons of upstream developers of GPL software choose to link against it. In Debian's world, they'll only allow you to use it if you get every contributor to agree to a special exemption clause appended to the GPL. Through their absolute fealty to the most draconian interpretation of the letter of the law, Debian does more to further the cause of software patents and non-free licensing than any other organization. They choose to demonstrate how idiotic such ideas about IP are by implementing them to their fullest — by being idiots.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > Debian does more to further the cause of software patents and non-free licensing than any other organization. Wow. Really? > They choose to demonstrate how idiotic such ideas about IP are by implementing them to their fullest — by being idiots. From the guidelines: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." I for one do not care at all for your rude name calling. For what it's worth, I'm not particularly fond of debian-legal either, but it's entirely possible to express that disagreement without calling everyone who does not see the world as you do "idiots".
    - blasdel 16y ago
      So who else is out there doing the work of enforcing American software patents on the users of the world? Even the BSA doesn't do that! Apple isn't out there enforcing their patent on the truetype hinting bytecode interpreter, but Debian refuses to ship a full version of freetype. The DVD-CCA gave up years ago, but Debian still won't ship a DeCSS implementation. Fraunhofer/Thomson/MPEG-LA only really care about companies shipping hardware, but Debian cares more about FUD and promoting OGG than actual use. None of this shit matters at all when shipping source code, and binaries only matter if both parties are in the US. But the Debian project is out there with jackboots on, doing what they can to take useful freely-licensed software out of distribution. What other organization is doing anything like that? I'm sorry that you find yourself so wrapped up in such an organization, I did not mean to insult you directly, but rather the ideology y'all are applying to make my world a worse place to live. And I would be far more acerbic in a face-to-face conversation. You didn't understand my line of argument centering around idiocy (should have used fewer anaphora) — my point was that the Debian people know that they're being idiots, and that it's the purpose of their actions in this squabble. We all know that software patents are stupid, but Debian's approach is to show the world just how stupid software patents are by fully respecting them, implementing the letter of the law until it is repealed. I think that's a useless and infuriating course of action.
duairc 16y ago
Do you have a citation for this?
cmsj 16y ago
"imagine".... OpenSSL's incompatibility with GPL is well documented. Check your google :)
- blasdel 16y ago
  Only Debian considers it to be a problem for GPL software to dynamically link with system versions of OpenSSL. They be loud and obnoxious about it, but they really are the only ones who are stirring up shit. It's only possible to be incompatible if the GPL software ships with a bundled version of OpenSSL and doesn't append an exception to the GPL. The OpenSSL project does not consider it to be a problem at all. The upstream authors that simultaneously link with OpenSSL and use a GPL license obviously don't think it's a problem.
- cmsj 16y ago
  Blasdel: no that's not true. Even OpenSSL themselves acknowledge there is a problem: http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
  - blasdel 16y ago
    Did you read it?: "(the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of the normal operating system distribution)" Even Debian is not jackass enough to patch SSH to link with NSS or GnuTLS instead.
    - cmsj 16y ago
      I did read it and I see that they are aware that their advertising clause causes problems for distribution and I see them recommending against making GPL software that links to OpenSSL. gem is GPL and links to OpenSSL.

rbanffy 16y ago

> The one in which he equaled Debian, the most independent and free software obsessed distribution out there, to Microsoft. Debian fails to do step 3. Microsoft's routine is "embrace, extend and suffocate" while Debian will never go beyond step 2. And they have the license to keep them honest.

zedshaw 16y ago

I researched it plenty, and since your comment can't point out factual errors in my post, I'll just assume you're a hypocrite. And yes, they embrace and extend. Embrace is taking the package in the first place. Extend is carving it up and patching it so that other companies that choose Debian are forced to either work around their quirks or accept them. That's the exact classic definition.

cmsj 16y ago
In FOSS we call this "branch and patch" ;) But seriously, all distros patch things, they have to to make them work well together on the platform in question or to get the features/fixes they need. Look at how much RHEL patches the kernel, or Ubuntu patches GNOME.
- blasdel 16y ago
  Red Hat backports new drivers and features to ancient kernels because their customers use binary drivers, and Linux does not maintain a stable ABI. It's a shitty but completely respectable position to be in. Canonical forks Gnome because Novell and a cadre of adolescents in western europe still technically control the project. Ubuntu will win eventually and this will stop being an issue. Sane distros patch upstream just enough to make the software build and work. Debian does it to fulfill their ideological goals.
  - cmsj 16y ago
    RH ships older kernels because they release relatively infrequently, and they've had time to QA them (the RH kernel test suite is huge and they run considerable stress tests). They backport features and drivers and fixes because their customers want the stability of well QA'd kernels and the support of newer server hardware and the benefits of fixes made later. One of the older RHELs even went so far as to backport entire subsystems from 2.6 into a 2.4 kernel because they felt overall 2.6 stability was insufficient for their needs. Specific grips with your assertions aside, I think you are too quick to dismiss the ideological goals of FOSS projects - the entire FOSS ecosystem is afterall founded on some pretty seriously ideological goals, particularly Free Software. Open Source exists to dampen these goals and I suspect that a lot of folks now involved in this world are just interested in forking ruby software from github to run on their Mac ;) Disclaimers: I own a Mac, but Linux has been my desktop/server OS of choice for the last decade, and I work as a sysadmin for a Linux distro company. I also write some software that's packaged in most of the distros now, so I feel self-entitled to see this from several very relevant perspectives ;)