[_delirium]

Depending on what you're interested in, I don't think you need to be involved in politics in the Debian world. I've been a minor participant for years and haven't run into much. A huge proportion of decisions, even some fairly complex ones, are made without fanfare. Most of that happens in the discussion threads of individual bugs, on the various collaborative-maintainership mailing lists, at Debcon, etc. There are definitely issues that do have a lot of fanfare, but they are fairly uncommon.

[e7620]

cough FFmpeg cough

[_delirium]

Yeah, that's one of the 1% or so of politically-tinged bits of the project. The ones I can recall from the past few years are: systemd, ffmpeg vs. libav, libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo, and whether to ship GFDL-licensed documentation with invariant sections. Fortunately I don't really care about any of those. :-) The systemd debate is the only one of those that's actually a bit interesting to follow imo.

One quasi-political issue that has somewhat more pervasive importance is the general relationship between Debian packages and the Ubuntu packages derived from them, which occasionally is a point of friction if the maintainers have different goals. In most cases it isn't a big problem though, afaict. There are reasonable number of cases where it's even the same maintainer.

[e7620]

In May 2004, a Debian packet maintainer (Eduard Bloch) started to send repeated personal insults to Jörg Schilling after one of Bloch's patch requests against mkisofs was rejected because it was full of bugs.

In March 2006, a group of Debian maintainers started to attack the cdrtools project.

The latter attacks have been based on the fact that cdrtools was licensed under the GPL. As a result, on May 15th 2006 most projects from the cdrtools project bundle have been relicensed under CDDL (giving more freedom to users than the GPL does). At the same time, an important amount of additional code (DVD support code from Jörg Schilling and a Reed Solomon decoder from Heiko Eißfeldt) has been added to the freely published sources.

In summer 2006, the attacks from the group of Debian maintainers escalated and in September 2006, these people created something they call a fork from cdrtools. They soon added a lot of bugs and this way turned the "fork" into a questionable experiment. The last work on this "fork" has been done eight months later on May 6th 2007, then the leader of the attacks stopped his efforts on the fork and instead started to advertize for nerolinux. During the Debian project activity, the source code distributed by Debian was modified in a way that violates GPL and Copyright and makes it impossible to legally distribute this "fork" called "cdrkit". There is no license problem with the original cdrtools.

[_delirium]

Ok, we can add that: there was also a debate about a cd-r/cd-rw app, spanning a period roughly 7-10 years ago. I'm not arguing that there has never been an acrimonious debate regarding a Debian package, just that it involves a vanishingly small proportion of packages. So few that I mostly only hear about these things via places like Slashdot (or a comment like this one).

[makomk]

There was no debate; the developer of cdrtools was just an asshole who (for example) refused to let users specify their CD-ROM drive by its actual /dev entry because he thought Linux should use (scsibus,target,lun) to identify devices like Solaris did. Eventually he fucked up the licensing of cdrtools enough that distros couldn't legally distribute it, Debian forked the last legally-distributable version under a new name, and all the other distros switched to their fork.

[e7620]

Ok, I agree with you entirely, just a quick response because I was quoting and so have the responsibility to avoid distorting other people's words. This didn't happen 7-10 years ago, that's when it started, but this continued happening until 2 or 3 years ago.

I hope all is clear now.

""" Ask your Linux distributor to include recent originals instead of broken forks.

Tell them that you like to decide yourself which program you choose. Whether it is the fork or whether it is the original program depends on which package works better.

[...]

The following Linux distributions currently work against the freedom of their users:

Debian, RedHat, Fedora

If you know of other unfree distributions, please report.

The following Linux distributions currently grant their users the freedom to select the better CD/DVD/Blu-Ray writing software:

Slackware, Gentoo, OpenSuSE, Ark Linux

[Lai0chee]

I gave up on Debian after they've renamed Firefox to Iceweasel.

[Xylakant]

Why that? AFAIK, they were not allowed to use the name firefox since their version of firefox contains or used to contain unofficial patches and mozilla forbids the use of the name "firefox" in that case.

Renaming was one of the options, dropping the patches the other.

[Lai0chee]

How do other distros solve this "issue"?

[sethrin]

Please see this for more background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_re...

[Xylakant]

AFAIK, they do not include unofficial patches.

[_delirium]

Some do, but they have them Mozilla-approved. Vendor-specific patches are allowed in a product called "Firefox", if Mozilla approves the patches before release. I believe Red Hat is one vendor that does that. Debian won't agree to include a package that needs third-party approval of modifications, though.

[Xylakant]

I'm sorry about the miswording - I meant "unoffical" as in "not officially approved". Thanks for the correction.

[dec0dedab0de]

That is the 4th criteria of the Open Source definition at work. I think it is a good rule, and makes sense. Mozilla is sharing their code, but doesn't want their name to be used for code they didn't approve.

[Lai0chee]

Yessss, just down vote me for sharing my personal opinion.