Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
Hi,
>>"Paul" == Paul J Thompson <thomppj@thomppj.student.okstate.edu> writes:
Paul> However, this above litertic is so far to the extreme in free
Paul> software that I believe we need to quite seriously analyze the
Paul> angle from which we are coming.
I, for one. like the angle we are coming from.
Paul> I will not argue the GPL. If I had my way, all Debian software
Paul> would be GPLed. However, there is a reality to which we must
Paul> submit -- the reality that we simply enough live in a commercial
Paul> world.
And, from the viewpoint of the commercial world, what we do
is insane, and immediately dismissed. Why *should* we pay any more
attention to the dictates of commercial enterprise than they do of
us? (Ever see anything about Linux in information week?)
Secondly, we have managed to survive quite well despite our
DFSG and seeming disregard for the fact that we live in a commercial
world.
Paul> 1. Free software is most often better then non-free software.
Paul> I believe this stems from many facets, including both the heart
Paul> and soul put into it and the concept of something always coming
Paul> better from volunteers then forced labor.
Paid labor, though, is a whole new ball game. Putting on my
commercial hat, a paid team, with hard deadlines, can often produce
results, taking unpopular decisions that need be taken, and
performing tasks that are not fun, but are required, and can produce
the finished product that volunteers very rarely do. (GNU and Linux
software seem to be exceptions). Quality wise, we have nothing that
comes close to any commercial word processor, web browser, photoshop,
coreldraw, page maker, frame maker, quicken. ....
Quality of software is a bad reason to espouse the free
software cause. Though I see the viewpoint of people who only
espoused Linux because it is better and cheaper than win 95. There is
more to free software than that.
Paul> 2. Also, certain limitations exist which make quite reasonable
Paul> the desire to somehow restrict the usage of software. As far as
Paul> netscape and the like are concerned, the can basically be
Paul> labeled as absolutely anything we like, and I have some not so
Paul> nice ideas -- must worse then non-free.
Reasonable, yes. I think that netscape is also
reasoanable. People must live. I can see where they are coming
from. I just don't think that is debian. The licence is suc that we
do not offer netscape even in non-free, but I can understand the
people behind netscape. I just don't have to join them
Paul> However, there are many software authors out there who put a
Paul> great deal of time and effort into a program because they care
Paul> about the result (and so on, etc etc...). And then, when they
Paul> release it, they attach say perchance one of those "free as long
Paul> as your non-commercial, then you have to ask me (etc, etc)" tags
Paul> on there which we all recognize.
Paul> Now, I think it is starting at not-very-nice and proceeding
Paul> quickly into audacious, insulting, and wrong for us to label
Paul> them as non-free. If you think about it, this is lumping there
Paul> efforts into the same category that we put netscape and the
Paul> like. I don't believe that is something we should be doing as a
Paul> representative -- and I believe we are the most direct
Paul> representative -- of the Linux community.
You have to draw the line some where. And the projedct drew
the line at the DFSG. It *is* like netscape -- it is just a matter of
degree.
Also, we are not the representatives of the Linux
community. We are not even the representative distribution. Most
Linux heavywieght run Red Hat, and it is way more popular than
us. They make all the nice political moves you advocate.
Debian is not the representatiev Linux distribution, it is not
the most popular, it is the *FREE* one. OK?
Paul> This is only one side of the negative aspect of our current
Paul> implementation of non-free.
Paul> The next side, however, is that which might come from the
Paul> reaction a new user of Debian/Linux to the non-free section. I
Paul> remember the first time I saw that one of my favorite programs,
Paul> Pine, was in non-free. And just because of this:
Paul> And we, the emminant and sovereign maintainers of Debian see fit
Paul> to usher it into the category of "non-free". I apologize for
Paul> the sarcasm, but come on! Is that the best we can do for them?
Because by our definition of free, it is not. Sorry. Lines in
the sand.
Paul> And no, I do not believe what I am saying is any of these:
>> We do not take the low road or the coward's course. We do not seek
>> to fit in. We do not trade our principles for popularity.
Paul> as some might say...
Paul> And from the final side, no matter what the case, we have to
Paul> maintain good public relations!!! I am not saying we need to
Paul> bend our ways or ideals and suddenly throw all non-free and
Paul> contrib into main.
Why? Why do we have to maintain good public relations? Why do
you put in work for debian? Is this s popularity contest? I work for
Debian 'cause it pleases my muse.
Paul> I do feel, however, that we without a shadow of a doubt need to
Paul> incredibly revise the way we currently deal with free/non-free
Paul> software.
I think you do not understand what Debian is about then.
Paul> Please consider what I have said here strongly. Please do not
Paul> reply in "free-software passion" as I have tried to respond as
Paul> best I can with reasonablity. And (hoping noone would even
Paul> suggest this) I have no intention of "leaving Debian" anytime
Paul> soon or "going off and starting my own distribution if I don't
Paul> like the Debian way". I do not feel that I could justify not
Paul> expressing the way I feel to support the words of Chris
Paul> (Lameter).
I have tried to be reasonable (no insults, etc). I just
strongly believe in the DFSG. It is more than a collection of words.
If, however, you think reasonable is a viewpoint that matches your
own, then I guess I am not reasonable.
Paul> As my closing point, I want to excerp a section from an
Paul> interview of Linux Torvalds by Hiroo Yamagata. The full
Paul> interview can be found at http://www.twics.com/~tlug/linus.html.
Paul> If any of our opinions matter, it would be his.
Actions speak louder than words. He did GPL Linux.
manoj
ps. Have we started making prospective maintainers look at the DFSG yet?
--
Do not allow this language (Ada) in its present state to be used in
applications where reliability is critical, i.e., nuclear power
stations, cruise missiles, early warning systems, anti-ballistic
missile defense systems. The next rocket to go astray as a result of
a programming language error may not be an exploratory space rocket
on a harmless trip to Venus: It may be a nuclear warhead exploding
over one of our cities. An unreliable programming language
generating unreliable programs constitutes a far greater risk to our
environment and to our society than unsafe cars, toxic pesticides, or
accidents at nuclear power stations. Hoare
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
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: