Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
On 27 Jun 1998 23:58:47 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Sounds pretty reluctant to me.
Not to me. Reluctant would not be packaging them at all.
> Quoting out of conte4xt, and quoting incompletely, seems to be
> an misguided attempt to be decieving. Why are you doing this?
I am not quoting out of context or incompletely. I am pointing out that
you are selectively choosing which portions to follow and which not to.
> Steve> To what end?
> Pardon?
You know, it would help if you wouted the part that this was in reference
to to provide context.
>>> 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).
How would you make it tighter? To what ends would it serve?
> 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.
Did I say they were? No. In fact later on I agreed with you. Let's
look at the all important context again.
>>> 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.
I do not see how this statement can be true. In what part of supporting
proprietary software does one, automatically, forgo supporting open software?
That is why I quoted what I did. The ideal should be a goal of providing a
good distribution, based on open software, that anyone can use without being
begrudge theit choice of software. Blood, sweat and tears have nothing to do
with that. Those who have contributed have gotten back what they wanted. If
they did not, they would not still be contributing.
> 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.
I am not calling Debian names, I am pointing out that you have an
attitude of religious zealotry. Please, do not put words into my mouth or
read things into my words which are clearly not there.
> >> 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.
Read Item 4, you have not done so since you begrudge people who make, use
and support proprietary software.
> 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.
And that is all well and good. Then why are you begrudging people who
want, use and produce non-free software? I'm not talking Debian, Manoj, I'm
talking *YOU*. I'm pointing out that the contract, to me, makes provisions
for that software because it is realized that such software can exist. Why
don't *YOU* follow that ideal?
> >> 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.
Right, so why do you call it a shame that QT doesn't meet it standards?
It is not a shame.
> I stand by the DFSG. No apologies; and with no regrets.
I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't be begrudging people for
their choices, now would you?
> 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?
What makes you think I am trying to force my views on you? I am just
pointing out that you seem to be blinded to certain passages in the very
contract you say you stand by. I couldn't care less where KDE or QT go. I
agree with the line drawn in the contract. I agree that KDE and QT do not
fall into the open area and should not be included.
I just don't agree that it is a shame or that commercial endeavors are
"reluctantly" supported by Debian. You make think it is a shame and you may
reluctantly support it, but I don't think you speak for the project as a
whole. Neither do I.
> Steve> There is *NO* shame in that or using it.
> Your opinion. I need not share it.
Nor do I need to share yours. That is why I take offense to you
elevating your opinion to that of the project as a whole when the project as
a whole is made up of a large number of diverse people, each with their own
opinion. I do not see shame and reluctance in the DSC or the DFSG, please do
not place your bias onto them.
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: