Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?
Hello all,
Some abbreviated thoughts from a long rant at Glenn.
I really don't think he is too fair to my point of view. At least from
my view, he always seems to prefer attacking me on red herring mail
editor technicalities or identity issues, instead of covering the
points I bring up.
Oh well, that's life in the Debian Project. I don't really give a
tinker's damn anyways. I'm just here to introduce some competing ideas
to try to make sure that the thread covers the ground it ought.
--- Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> > I agree that there is a good reason for non-free. I believe the
> > justification / reason / purpose of non-free is to earmark data
> > (software, etc.) which cannot be redistributed by CD vendors. Java
> is a
> > good example because Sun will not let just anybody hand out copies
> of
> > different parts of it.
>
> No, that is not the purpose of non-free (though it's one useful
> secondary
> purpose). The purpose is being able to package things separately
> which are not DFSG-free. Things which are DFSG-unfree but are still
> freely distributable are intended--and have always been intended--to
> go
> to non-free. (There have been various discussions of how to further
> split non-free, to tag which pieces can be distributed by CD vendors
> and which can't.)
That's not my understanding. It seems to me that non-free software is
stuff that is encumbered in such a way that it's hard to really use it
or debug it or redistribute it or develop it. This does not apply to
the GFDL unless it's read in a pretty extreme (non middle-of-the-road)
fashion.
> Qmail is "freely distributable" (if I remember correctly), with
> significant limitations on modification. GFDL documents are "freely
> distributable", with significant limitations on modification. How
> are they so different that they should be treated in any way
> differently?
Alright. The difference (as I see it) is that Qmail's limits on
modification make it substantially less useful. The GFDL limits make
GFDL content less modifiable, with the advantage of preventing
censorship. In some ways, the GFDL is more free than a typical free
license like BSD because GFDL prevents consumers / users / downstream
people from twisting the author's intent. I think that respecting free
software and free documentation includes some respect for the freedoms
of authors to be able to convey their true meaning without it being
stripped away by third parties. Note that I mean to say this right
could be worth having for software as well as documentation, but I
won't go any further on the software idea because I do not find it to
be germane to the thread at hand.
> > Using non-free should be doable, but not to the extent it becomes a
> > knee-jerk reflex or default course of action. If we decide GFDL is
> not
> > free enough, then (this will sound dumb and reduntant to everyone
> but I
> > need to say it) we should not go about sneaking it into main for
> > convenience.
>
> Using non-free (or not packaging at all, depending) *should* be the
> default
> course of action, when non-free works are discovered. The GFDL is
> not free
> enough, and not even remotely close: there are non-essential
> (non-license-
> text) pieces that *can't be modified at all*, or even removed. (I
> find it
> continually disappointing that people will actually argue that
> completely
> invariant, untouchable text is "free enough"; I have to wonder why
> they're
> even here.)
You got me on this one. Forgive my frankness, but I fucked that
paragraph up without realizing it until I saw your reply. What I
_really_ meant was, "Using non-free should be doable _FOR USERS_, but
not to the extent it becomes a knee-jerk reflex or default course of
action."
I meant to echo Stallman's sentiment for developers (in the essay I
mentioned in the parent) that, should we decide item X is not free, we
should not sneak it into main or lower our standards to allow it into
Debian. Basically, if we decide something is non-free, I think people
should have to go to a little extra work to use it, as an incentive to
use free things first. Otherwise there is not a lot of motivation to
push ahead on free alternatives.
There is however a balance point. It could be argued that the GFDL is
approximately as free as the DFSG rules, but in a different way. GFDL
is a license that grants some more privilege to an author to preserve
his/her original intent and/or meaning without interference.
This could have an advantage for users (DFSG's #1 priority) because
they can be sure that they have received a document that the original
creator would approve of. They know the author's original intent and
philosophical reason for doing something some way. What about that side
of the GFDL coin? Nobody seems to have mentioned this yet, to my
estimation.
Another thing, it's not fair for you to think / say people should not
be here just because they have a different definition of freedom than
you do.
Nor is it fair to say that anyone's argument is more or less
meritorious just because of its being communicated anonymously. I just
feel that adding my name to this would cause certain trolls, flamers,
etc. to jump onto my back and drag me down.
Also, there are certain things I have posted to Debian lists under my
own name that turned into really unpleasant boat anchors to past points
of view that are no longer relevant.
Reply to: