Debian Free Software (FSF) or Open Source? (was Re; non-cd...)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Hi,
> >>"Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net> writes:
>
> Kevin> Sorry, I didn't mean to say non-GPL. Want I mean to say is
> Kevin> that I think companies should be rewarded for distributing
> Kevin> there programs freely even if they are not complete free by
> Kevin> debian's standard.
>
> Sorry. Either they are free, by our standards, or they are
> not. We have a well defined stance on this subject. That stance is
> encapsulated in the DFSG. We ``reward'' people who follow the
> licances acceptable in teh DFSG. Anything not in the DFSG is only
> reluctantly supoported by Debian.
>
> If you think companies should be rewarded for efforts that do
> not meet Debian's criteria; that is your right. Please feel free to
> reward them as you see fit.
>
> Debian, on the other hand, has taken a stance on this
> issue. I, for one, am unlikely to change (I think we are not quite
> conservative enough on the freedom of software issue; I personally
> would like to see the DFSG made tighter; Alex is one who would
> advocate the DFSG be made looser).
>
> You are asking a bunch of people putting a lot of blood,
> sweat, and tears in a project; working without monetary recompence;
> to forgo the one thing that holds us together -- our belief in a
> community of people committed to freedom of software.
If you have the same beliefs as the GPL founder (who seams not to
believe in the Open Source movement) than I have nothing more to say to
you. However I hope that is not the case because Linus Torvalds does
believe in the Open Source Movement.
>
> I for one think I am more inclined to agree with RMS when he
> talks about the isidious evil of proprietary software that
> divides the community against itself.
>
I agree. But KDE is not, it just uses Qt because it is the best tool
available and troll tech agreed to support it as evident by forming of
the "The KDE Free Qt Foundation."
> The peole who work on Debian voted on the DFSG. With that
> vote, we effectively said we believed in the philosophy the DFSG
> espouses. I hope you do not have a problem with that.
With the new Open Source movement I think it is time to reexamine your
true mission. If you want to create a pure GNU system than continue
what you are doing. However if you want to have an active role in the
Open Source movement--that Linus supports--than I see the debain
philosophy as a major roadblock if kept unchanged. Chances are more
major linux programs will use free (but not free to debian standards) to
accularate development.
>
> >> KDE is in Debian's "contrib." section. It's not in "non-free". "contrib."
> >> section is distributed in our official CDs.
>
> Kevin> And it is in the contrib. section because it relays on
> Kevin> non-free software... Thus it can never officially itergrated
> Kevin> into debian because of the Qt library KDE uses. I think that
> Kevin> that is a shame.
>
> Then work on troll tech to release qt under a dfsg compliant
> licence. Or work on the KDE folks to use something else besides QT.
The first might happen eventully but I doubt it. The second is not
likly to happen in my view.
> BTW, I quite agree with you when you say it is a shame. KDE
> should never have used a non-free library. It is not too late for
> them to change now (though I would not be rude enough to say this
> on the KDE list; snce the decision is indeed theirs).
I think what they did was perfectly fine and fully support it.
What it really boils down to is what movement Debian wishes to support.
1) The Free Software Foundation and GNU in which making debian into a
totally free and always free OS is the most important goal
or
2) The Open Source Movement is which promoting linux and the open source
concept is formost. This may mean bending the rules a little here and
there and perhaps modifying some of the fundamental principles a bit to
better promote debian.
Now I don't agree with RedHAT because their main focus seems to be
making money (as on the WWW page its easy to get the impression that no
free version on RedHAT exists). I also dislike RedHat for the fact that
they rely on including commercial products (in which are truly not free)
to make there OS better rather than work on improving those parts and
then releasing then under the GPL or similar.
I don't have a problem with KDE because it only relies on one non GPL
like library and that library is free for all developers of KDE to use
and compile with out having to pay troll tech a cent.
I have a slight problem with Mozilla because it relies on on a
commercial library that is not free for developers to use (however
Netscape did the best there could based on the fact that Netscape was
non-free for a good time and using a non-free library for non-free
product is clearly acceptable). However this hopefully will change soon
as a ports to LessTif and qt is on the way....
So which one does Debian which to support FSF or Open Source? I really
hope it is Open Source...
If it is clear that debian wishes to stick to the FSF and GNU principles
than I might just create my own distribution. However I rather not as I
think that would be really counter productive.
I hope I have brought up some serious issues and have not created flame
bate.
Thanks In Advance,
Kevin Atkinson
A Devoted Debian User
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: