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.

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.

> 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".

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.

With regards to the legal stuff, I simply don't know. One of the things that bugged me about debian-legal were all the people convinced that they did know it all. I'm not a lawyer and neither are most people there. Neither are you or the OpenSSL guys either, though, as far as I know. My firm conviction is that most "open source legal debates" are essentially the blind arguing with the blind about various painters. Although, of course, many real lawyers are also so vague and non-commital in what they say that they're not much use either, so I tend to just want to stay as far away as possible from that kind of discussion.

That said, one thing I don't agree with you on is that "well, they probably won't notice / bother us, so it's ok to skirt the letter of the law". I think that's not really the right attitude either. Debian makes some strong commitments to shipping free software that people can use and redistribute as they see fit, so I think they have to be cautious at times.

I am not a part of Debian any more. I moved on to being simply a user (and bug reporter) of Ubuntu, which I think gets some things right that Debian didn't. I just don't like the "you fucking idiots" style of debate.

"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.

"imagine".... OpenSSL's incompatibility with GPL is well documented. Check your google :)

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.

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.

Do you have a citation for this?