Re: Policy on software used to create desktop theme?
El Miércoles, 26 de octubre, 2016 21:18:12, Onsemeliot <onsemeliot@gmail.com> escribió:
On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 23:36 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > If not even the free software community thinks using free tools for doing
> > our artwork is the right thing to do: Who else should?
>
> You're missing the point, which I've highlighted already.
As far as I can tell YOUR point is only a practical one. And I clearly
stated that I don't dispute anything on this level. But you didn't offer
any reason why it should be sensible to use artwork created with
non-free software to represent free software.
I did explain why I see a problem in the present practise of accepting
artwork done with proprietary tools and will do it once more: To me this
is totally misplaced. Like an advisor who doesn't make a strong case for
her argument if she herself doesn't act according to it. Are you
convinced by people who say the one thing, but do something else?
> I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by putting extra
> restrictions on the toolchain used to produce these submissions. We
> already have freedom. You seem to be trying to impose censorship.
If you still can't get my simple point then I don't know what else to
write. And yes, I dare to propose a restriction. You can argue defining
certain standards is a restriction. I'm fine with that.
People can use non-free tools everywhere they like. This doesn't mean it
would be sensible to do in this context.
Maybe you need a stronger comparison:
People often claim they are at war to achieve peace. In my opinion this
can't work because in the end you can't get anywhere if you do exactly
what you try to overcome. What matters is what you actually do and not
what you think about it. Very rarely we achieve all we hoped for. The
only certain thing that happens is what we actually do. We never reach a
finite end. Life is going on and on. Our lives are shaped by actions.
Not by interpretation. ... When we make use of non-free tools for our
design then we communicate in our practice that this is - in our view -
the proper way.
In my eyes it is a contradiction for Debian to use art which was not
created with free software. This is weakening the over all credibility
of the project as an ambassador for free software. It sends out the
message that its not relevant what tools are used - even if proprietary.
It limits the public statement to just the use of open standards for
exchange formats. Debian does offer great software. But these qualities
are meaningless? The only thing that counts is the open exchange format?
It's very similar to the dispute open source vs. free software. Open
source doesn't consider freedom. It just cares about practicability ...
Anyway, I am obviously arguing for a minority view around here.
Therefore it doesn't seem to make any more sense to explain it over and
over again. I hope this is not an indicator for Debian drifting down a
slippery slope I would rather want to avoid.
All the best to all of you,
Onsemeliot
-------
The end justifies the means????
The end = free license
means = proprietary programs (payment or crack license key) or free programs?
NO!!!!
ok forbidden to forbid !!!
but....
yes!! promote or reward the use of free software instead of proprietary software
15 minutes it took me to make a fork svg master, of the theme png image software, in inkscape program
fork built with free software: http://purasanata.neocities.org/
free software Yes We Can!!!!!
greetings to all
Reply to: