Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Paul J Thompson wrote:
> Let's not look through a keyhole, ok? There are alot more to what a document
> says then the straight translation that goes along with it. It is called
> tone. and the tone of the DFSG is somewhat degrading to non-free (actually I
> should say non-dfsg) software.
[...]
> > This is bending over backwards. We don't have to hand non-free software
> > developers a lollipop.
>
> Why not? I think it would be better then handing them a fork. Alot of those
> non-dfsg developers have produced some great software. And for my vote, let's
> start referring to non-dfsg and less of non-free. Let's call it what it
> really means...
No one has ever called into question the quality of non-DFSG software. In
all honesty I think our differences over the wording of the DFSG come down
to subjective interpretations. You perceive one tone and I perceive
another. The only way to settle this at the distribution level is to call
up Ian and ask him to moderate a vote on the subject. :)
> Sure, you got me there. What can I say to excuse the fact I simply am
> _younger_ then you guys. It can also (and has in many different situations)
> that someone younger (or just newer) has a fresher perspective, seeing
> something with new eyes that long termers might not realize.
>
> What I see pretty precisely is the perspective a college student will see
> coming into the Linux community. These people (and we have to remember that
> students are the Linux-developers of tomorrow) are coming straight from the
> pretty up world of Microsoft. The dfsg are simply going to make a lot less
> sense to most of them then they might not to me (not that I am saying they
> don't make sense to me).
I'm more concerned with Debian being the best distribtion than the most
popular. I see us largely as an experiment to see just how well you can do
with free -- really free -- software. I see Debian as challenging the
traditional, corporate, source-code-concealed model of software
development, and even in some sense of the "cathedral" model of free
software development. This is a *new* idea -- some of your suggestions,
rather than being the fresh perspectives of a newcomer, sound to me more
like the old hat we've been hearing from the big boys for years. As far as
I can gather, both Bruce and Ian are closer to my perspective than your.
Dare I say it, a personal conversation I had with Ian Murdock about a year
ago did not dissuade me from this perspective. In fact, I think I promptly
afterwards got serious about it.
> > Mind you, it wasn't Bruce who suggested that his seven theses be nailed to
> > the church door (the web page). Bruce stuck them back in the pulpit, where
> > only the other clergy would see them.
>
> (not picking on Bruce here) Why? I think that, being the _core_ of the way
> Debian works, the seven theses should be nailed right on the front. Hey, at
> least this is a simple change!
I don't think such a statement should go on the webpage unless it truly
refelects the attitudes of the developers. Bruce has not submitted that
for any sort of ratification as official, and until and unless he does I'm
going to regard it as a statement of his personal beliefs.
--
G. Branden Robinson | I just wanted to see what it looked like
Purdue University | in a spotlight.
branden@purdue.edu | -- Jim Morrison
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
--
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: