Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
>>>>> "MS" == Manoj Srivastava.
As a general rule, I dislike `me too posting', as I tend to consider them
noisy, but this time I do think things should be very clearly stated.
I completely agree with Manoj's and Bruce's and many others' viewpoint
about free software, particularly about what Debian consider and *should*
consider free (i.e. DFSG). I think they are very representative of my own
viewpoint. I believe in DFSG as a model of something higher than good
rules: yes, DFSG doesn't come from God's hands (*), but DFSG (and the
Social Contract, and similar statements) is the very reason I choose
Debian for.
(*): maybe it does really come from the Great GNU's very hands. :-)
I'm a (fresh :-) new developer: I read DFSG very carefully before I
decided to apply to become a Debian developer; I wouldn't have done it if
I felt not comfortable with it.
I run Debian on my system not just because it's a high quality Linux
distribution; if that was the case I could also choose to run RedHat. I
run Debian because of the goals Debian has, and it pleases me to do so.
MS> I, for one. like the angle we are coming from.
Me too.
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
Paul> commercial world.
I don't see the point: nobody forces us to do what we are doing (Debian):
there are other viable alternatives as well (RedHat, for example). We
aren't even forced to become the #1 distribution in the world of Linux (**)
(I'll be happy if this was the case, but I won't cry if this wasn't). We
just try to do our best the way we like it. I won't be happy to do
something in some way I dislike, and, since nobody's gonna pay me to do it
(not that I wanted to, read it as `I'm not forced to do it'), I simply
won't do it.
(**): I think Debian is something more of a mere Linux distribution. I
like to think Debian as `The Universal Operating System'. We use Linux
because of its high quality and because it's GPL'd, but there's nothing
special about Linux: Debian could use any other free (in DFSG sense)
kernel as well, with or without GNU's wonderful software. I'm very
grateful to Linus and the GNU project, particularly grateful to RMS, since
without him we all weren't be here where we are, but Debian is *not*
GNU+Linux: Debian is an open group, made by people working together with
similar goals (the Social Contract).
Working on Debian, I couldn't care less of our commercial world: I don't
plan to conquer the market! I just want to do my best working on
something I really like, enjoining my work. Obviously, we should
encourage people to use Debian and assist them in doing so, but this
doesn't mean we should do things one way or the other just because people
like it more: we should do it *if* (and only if) doing things keeps
ourselves happy with what we are doing. DFSG software keeps me happy,
while non DFSG software doesn't. (I don't regard DFSG as the
_definitively_ correct answer, but I do like what's behind it, and
currently I'm quiet happy with how this is phrased in DFSG too.)
MS> And, from the viewpoint of the commercial world, what we do is
MS> insane, and immediately dismissed. Why *should* we pay any more
MS> attention to the dictates of commercial enterprise than they do
MS> of us? (Ever see anything about Linux in information week?)
I agree.
MS> Quality of software is a bad reason to espouse the free software
MS> cause. Though I see the viewpoint of people who only espoused
MS> Linux because it is better and cheaper than win 95. There is more
MS> to free software than that.
I agree.
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
Paul> long as your non-commercial, then you have to ask me (etc,
Paul> etc)" tags 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
Paul> a representative -- and I believe we are the most direct
Paul> representative -- of the Linux community.
Nobody here wants to insult none else, I believe. Maybe we should make
more clear that non-free refers to DFSG freeness guidelines. We may also
differentiate between non-free CD-able packages and non-free not CD-able
packages, though I'm not particularly interested. But for what Debian
cares, non DFSG software is non-free; what's the problem with it being so?
MS> Debian is not the representatiev Linux distribution, it is not
MS> the most popular, it is the *FREE* one. OK?
I agree. As I stated before I like to think Debian is also something more
of a `Linux distribution'.
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...
Maybe Bruce writing sounds a bit as a religious dogma, but I agree with
him. We should not trade our principles for popularity, just because our
principles are the very reason for Debian to exist. We don't have to sell
Debian to anyone, we don't have marketing people worried about how user
like or dislike Debian policies about free software. We do just what we
want, and we want good free software enjoyable by everybody --- and we
also support our users very well. We try to be nice to other (commercial
or not) software authors, to their wives and to their cats :-), but if
their software is not good free software enjoyable by everybody, for
example because you couldn't use it in a commercial installation without
authors' written consent, I see no point in trying to accommodate Debian
goals to let that software fit into main (or, better, to let main fit in
that software :-). We just put it into non-free. If the authors greatest
wish was to see their software into Debian's main, they could just go and
change their license.
I don't think to be a non-free Debian package is some sort of shame for
any software package. Nevertheless, if there exist people who perceive it
this way we should try and make it clearer, if possible, that non-free
means not DFSG compliant.
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.
MS> I think you do not understand what Debian is about then.
I wouldn't have wrote this way, but I'm inclined to think the same.
MS> I have tried to be reasonable (no insults, etc). I just strongly
MS> believe in the DFSG. It is more than a collection of words.
Me too.
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
Paul> http://www.twics.com/~tlug/linus.html.
Paul> If any of our opinions matter, it would be his.
MS> Actions speak louder than words. He did GPL Linux.
As far as I'm concerned, Linus could think whatever he likes to think. As
I said I'm very grateful to him, because he started a great Free project.
But I disagree with you: I don't think we should give Linus opinions any
more credit than your opinions or Manoj opinions (or my own opinions, of
course :-). Linus is not my guru (if I ever had to choose one right now
I'll choose RMS :-) and Debian is not Linux. Debian uses Linux, maybe
Debian wouldn't have been even conceivable without Linux, but Debian is
not Linux. And, of course, Linux itself is not Linus. Certainly Linus
opinions are respectable ones, but we are Debian, not a Linus fans club:
we should not change our mind about something just because Linus thinks it
different, neither Linus would want us to do it, I believe.
MS> ps. Have we started making prospective maintainers look at
MS> the DFSG yet?
Speaking for myself, I knew I had to, and I did it indeed.
P.S.: Excuse my poor English ability, it's not my first language.
--
Davide G. M. Salvetti (A proud Debian GNU/Linux user and developer.)
FidoNet: 2:332/617.33 HAM: IW5DZC [JN53fr] KeyID: 2F617F71
Good Operating Systems should have full sources available.
Have you ever tried Debian GNU/Linux? (http://www.debian.org/)
--
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: