Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
On 13.VI.2003 at 13:06 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:29:03PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free
> > documentation and not about free works.
>
> Well, they're the Free *Software* Foundation.
> Presumably, they care first and foremost about software.
The same with Debian: we are (still) a software distribution.
> > It is questionable whether we have to require these freedoms from
> > works that are not software, nor documentation.
>
> What's questionable about it? This sort of rhetoric is FUD.
My statement was that it is not our job to require freedoms from works
that will never be part of Debian.
> > For our Debian distribution the difference is not much important as we
> > distribute only software and documentation.
>
> Not true, unless you define "software and documentation" so broadly that
> you open yourself up to exactly the same sort of ridicule that I
> received for calling everything in Debian main "effectively software".
Yes, I defined "software and documentation" so broadly. :)
> Things like the music files for frozen-bubble are neither software nor
> documentaiton.
OK. If a music file is a part of some software, then we expect to be
able to modify it.
On the other hand if I am not allowed to modify some work such as
music or picture, then I will miss this freedom only in case I want to
use it as part of some software. Thats why I think that these 4+1
freedoms are essentially software freedoms.
> You are thinking only about what the software can do, and not about what
> the *license* might do.
I can not think about a license that provides me with the first 4
freedoms, but not with the fifth. Any hints? Maybe this depends on
how one interprets the first 4 freedoms?
> I don't think it makes sense to treat the FSF as some sort of unstable
> psychotic who's likely to go off and start shooting people if his every
> whim is not sated.
It wasn't my intention to persuade this. We are free to discuss any
definitions of what is free software/documentation/work. I just
wanted point out that FSF always tries to make its philosophical ideas
clear. If Debian differs in something, then they will make their best
to educate our FS community why Debian is not right. If we try to
clarify/change the definition of free software in collaboration with
FSF -- that is wonderful. But otherwise let us talk about guidelines
rather that about definitions.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: