Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
Hi,
>>"Steve" == Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> writes:
Steve> On 27 Jun 1998 18:38:55 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Steve> Item #4 of the Debian social contract:
Steve> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the
Steve> free-software community. We will place their interests first
Steve> in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for
Steve> operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We
Steve> won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on
Steve> Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added
Steve> distributions containing both Debian and commercial software,
Steve> without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will
Steve> provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free
Steve> software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these
Steve> kinds of use.
Can you read further?
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that
don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
"contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software.
The software in these directories is not part of the Debian system,
although it has been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD
manufacturers to read the licenses of software packages in these
directories and determine if they can distribute that software on their
CDs. Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we
support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our
bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages.
Steve> "We will support the needs of our users for operation in
Steve> many different kinds of computing environment." That does not
Steve> sound reluctant and to me, a commercial environment which is
Steve> using commercial software is a kind of computing environment.
Reading and quoting the contract partially is your error.
"We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas ... The software in
these directories is not part of the Debian system although it has
been configured for use with Debian
Sounds pretty reluctant to me.
Quoting out of conte4xt, and quoting incompletely, seems to be
an misguided attempt to be decieving. Why are you doing this?
Steve> To what end?
Pardon?
Steve> "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
Steve> community. We will place their interests first in our priorities."
The software in these directories is not part of the Debian
system.
>> 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.
Steve> Religious zealotry at its finest, it is also a misguided
Steve> ideal founded on a faulty premise and one that should not be
Steve> taken too seriously or strived for completely without the
Steve> understanding that there is a place for support proprietary
Steve> software, for people who want and use proprietary software,
Steve> and the fact that open and proprietary software can coexist on
Steve> *ANY* platform.
That is your view point. You are welcome to it. The Debian
philosophy is in the Social contract. Calling us names does not
change it.
>> 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.
Steve> I don't. Please read item 4 again quite carfully.
Plesae read item 5. You have apparently not done so.
Steve> I had to tackle someone else who had a radical view of what
Steve> the DFSG was and was not. To me the DFSG is the ideal
Steve> philosophy. To me it states that well will produce open
Steve> software *BUT* we acknolwdge that there is not only a right
Steve> but a need for prorpietary and we support the *USERS* decision
Steve> over our own ideals. I am not stuck on the definition of what
Steve> is and is not free.
And we refuse to make non-free software and software that
depends on it part of the Debian system. This is not merely "ideal
philosophy". It is philosophy the project lives by.
>> 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.
Steve> Why? It works for them, end of story. I also agree with
Steve> you here, begrudgingly. It doesn't meet the standards set by
Steve> the DFSG, it is not open, it is contrib or non-free.
The DFSG works for us. End of story.
>> 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).
Steve> I don't think it is a shame. What is a shame is people
Steve> taken any "open" or "free" movement to such extremes. Let me
Steve> explain it in simple terms.
I stand by the DFSG. No apologies; and with no regrets.
Steve> But I don't think that anyone should *EVER* dictate what
Steve> other people shoudl and should not use based solely on whether
Steve> or not it is open or proprietary.
We don't. KDE is available on our ftp site. We do not promote
it; and it shall never be a part of the Debian system. You can't
force us to use it either. We have taken a stance; our stance is in
the DFSG. Why are you trying to force your views on us? What right do
you think you have?
Steve> There is *NO* shame in that or using it.
Your opinion. I need not share it.
manoj
--
Secret sources are more credible. -- Ron Nessen
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, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: