Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
> Leland> A more tolerant attitude might guard against Debian being
> Leland> perceived as dogmatic in it's idealism.
>
> Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language:
> dog ma: n. pl. -mas, -mata
> 1 System of principles or tenets, as of a church
> 2 a specific tenet or doctrine authoratively laid down, as by a
> church.
> 3 prescribed doctrine
> 4 settled or established opinion, belief, or principle
>
> Methinks the DFSG qualifies ;-). I think I want to follow our
> dogma and be idealistic. In this day and age, idealism is more
> required than ever, though it does tend to get sneered at.
and now we'll quote the dictionary? anyone (Manoj) what's the Webster
definition of free?
I'm serious too, I want to hear it here...
> Why do you feel the need to diffuse our idealism? Are we
> trying to be popular? I think our commitment to the free software
> paradigm has brought us where we are. Why mend something that works?
There is a difference between idealism and extremism. And is must not be
working 100% if there are a significant amount of people complaining, of which
there are.
> Yes, of course. The material is still there when needed, but
> we do not have to promote it.
Invalid -- some of the software is perfectly good software whose authors are
just as softwarily ethical as those of some of our favorite DFSG authors.
> Leland> My impression is that a vocal group of Debian developers
> Leland> _want_ to discourage the use of non-DFSG software.
>
> Yes. And yes, I guess I am pretty vocal, though I'd like to
> believe that I am a representative of the majority of developers.
I don't think you do. But hey, just like you, who am I to say without a more
organized way of taking a consensus. --a cold vote wouldn't exactly accomplish
much here on such a multi-sided issue.
> Leland> I think there is a fear that non-DFSG software may become
> Leland> popular, and threaten the existence of "truly free" software.
>
> Believe me, it is not stuff in non free we have to be scared
> about then. Guess what is the wrold's most popular OS?
Then why are we so pointlessly negative towards our non-free branch?
> Leland> (I think the sometimes venomous opposition to Qt is a result
> Leland> of this fear. Motif seems to be perceived as less of a
> Leland> threat, so it is slightly more tolerated, even though it's
> Leland> licensing is more restrictive than Qt's.)
>
> Nice theory.
Give me a break, Manoj, he's right to a certain extent.
> Leland> Personally, I think we could be a little more friendly to
> Leland> non-DFSG cost free software, and that it would not threaten
> Leland> the goals of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> I am unfriendly to non-free software not because it threatens
> debian. If that were indeed the case, this argument may have
> merit. Do you think the DFSG are merely words? Rules that can be
> bent? We _believe_ in the principle embodied in the DFSG. These are
> not words we seek to have loopholes around.
They _are_ words, not the ten commandments. Not the word of God. Just a
bunch of rules made up a qyite a while ago, not really ratified (and I've
heard the story hear...), of which the group has changed since then...
> manoj
> who is beginning to face up to the fact that he may well be a fanatick
aren't we all. :-)
Paul J Thompson
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: