Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
>
> Hi,
> >>"Leland" == Leland Olds <olds@eskimo.com> writes:
>
> Leland> A more tolerant attitude might guard against Debian being
> Leland> perceived as dogmatic in it's idealism.
>
> Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language:
> dog ma: n. pl. -mas, -mata
> 1 System of principles or tenets, as of a church
> 2 a specific tenet or doctrine authoratively laid down, as by a
> church.
> 3 prescribed doctrine
> 4 settled or established opinion, belief, or principle
>
> Methinks the DFSG qualifies ;-). I think I want to follow our
> dogma and be idealistic. In this day and age, idealism is more
> required than ever, though it does tend to get sneered at.
The definition of dogmatism I'm refering to is:
Positiveness in assertion of opinion esp. when unwarrented or
arrogant. (Websters Ninth New Collegiate)
> Why do you feel the need to diffuse our idealism? Are we
> trying to be popular? I think our commitment to the free software
> paradigm has brought us where we are. Why mend something that works?
The perception of unwarranted and arrogant opinions and policies is
driving many good people away from Debian. That is bad. It hurts the
cause for free software.
I agree with the Debian Social contract and the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. They make a strong and compelling statement in favor of
free software while acknowledging the need and supporting the use of
software that does not fully comply.
They are not dogmatic. They are excellent documents. They attract
people to Debian and to the cause of free software. That is good. I
want this, because more people using and developing for Debian makes
the distribution better.
>
> Leland> By calling it "non-free" (per DFSG), mixing it with software
> Leland> that cannot be legally distributed on CD's without cost, and
> Leland> excluding it from the "official" CD, we are discouraging it's
> Leland> use.
>
> Yes, of course. The material is still there when needed, but
> we do not have to promote it.
>
<snipped a little>
>
> Leland> Personally, I think we could be a little more friendly to
> Leland> non-DFSG cost free software, and that it would not threaten
> Leland> the goals of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> I am unfriendly to non-free software not because it threatens
> debian. If that were indeed the case, this argument may have
> merit. Do you think the DFSG are merely words? Rules that can be
> bent? We _believe_ in the principle embodied in the DFSG. These are
> not words we seek to have loopholes around.
I agree with DFSG. If I thought it called for Debian developers to be
unfriendly to non-DFSG software, I couldn't agree with it.
--
Lee Olds
olds@eskimo.com
--
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: