Re: Debian Free Software (FSF) or Open Source? (was Re; non-cd...)
Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net> writes:
> I think that Debian should keep that guideline to identify to people
> what is truly free but should adopt a slightly less strict guideline to
> be able to include stuff like Qt, KDE and Mysql into the official
> distributions.
What, is our word supposed to mean NOTHING? Are we supposed to make
false promises about free-ness, only to be proven liars because we
included software that does not meet our own self-created guidelines?
"We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
software."
The Social Contract is a promise made by Debian to the world at large.
Promises should not be broken lightly; ones word should still mean
something, even in today's world of spin, lies, and dubious ethics.
What is so important about KDE that makes it worth breaking our word
and betraying our publically stated principles? Is *any* piece of
software worth such a breach of basic ethics?
> Yes it does. But unfortunately it limits what can go in it. Stuff that
> is not trully-free but free-enough does not go in it when it goes into
> almost every other distribution.
So what?
Debian is not "almost every other distribution." They have their
standards, we have ours. If we didn't have our own standards, then
why would we bother to exist as a separate distribution at all?
Shouldn't we have the freedom to be selective, instead of having to
have certain packages just because "almost every other distribution"
has them?
> > The quality will be ensured by us developers.
>
> Please elaborate.
The developers are responsible for the packages, and thus for the
ultimate quality of the distribution. If there is a problem with
Debian, we need look no farther than ourselves for the solution.
> For the strict software guideline nothing has changed.
> Howeve for the ultimate goals things have changes.
>
> As I see it:
>
> FSF) Develope high quality free software.
>
> Open Source) Convince commercial organizations that free software is
> high quality stuff.
This is still only a difference in marketing strategy. The FSF would
win over the market on technical and philosophical merit alone, and
failing that, would use the GPL as a "legal virus" to encourage the
creation of more free software. The Open Source folk would promote
free software by marketing. Either way, someone must commit to
producing quality free software, else there is nothing to market.
Incidentally, I find it somewhat ironic that you would be in favor of
the commercial focus of the Open Source group at the same time as you
promote QT, because it is in the area of freedom for commercial use
that QT fails the OSD/DFSG test...
--Rob
--
Rob Tillotson N9MTB Internet: rob@io.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: