Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
On 28 Jun 1998 01:13:54 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Make free software a greater priority. Proprietary software
> divides people, and prevents a sense of community. One is a mere user
> -- dependent on the provider of the software, unable to share with
> friends, feeding ones dependency with more money to the people who
> provide the software that made us dependent.
Make free music a greater priority. Proprietary music divides people,
and prevents a sense of community. One is a mere listener, dependant on the
provider of the music, unable to share with friends, feeding ondes dependency
with more money to the people who provide the music that made us dependent.
> Free software is about community.
Free music is about community.
> Look at my statements above. Every piece of proprietary
> software tends to divide us against ourselves. RMS called it
> unspeakably evil. I may not go as far as that, but the concept behind
> his arguments is indeed compelling.
Compelling and flawed. The core arguement is that the programmer only
has to write the program once. Everything from that point on is mearly
duplication. Copies can be easily made.
The same can be said of music, as my rewording of your statement above
shows. The musician only writes the song once, performs it once. From then
on it is all duplication.
Do you listen to only GPL'd music?
The same can be said for a variety of different things as well. Books
come to mind. Do you read only GPL'd books?
Somehow I don't think you'll be able to effectively argue that commercial
music and books are dividing the community when they provide a strong basis
for community. Why, then, is software any different in your mind?
To me, according to your arguement, software as a less of a claim to
community because software, first and foremost, is about getting work done.
Sure, there are games, but I think utilities, applications, protocols and OSs
far outweight games. Music is enjoyment, pure and simple, without community
there would be little point to it. Books are the middle ground with a large
base of both fiction (fun) and non-fcition (work) to draw from. Even so, it
has more claim to community than software does.
> However, those who contribute decide what the ideal should
> be. Deny them the right, and the flood of contributions trickles to
> an end.
Correct. That is why I said that I do not speak for Debian and neither
do you. *MY* ideal is that open and commercial software can coexist based on
the needs of the individual who is using both and not on the ideals of the
people who made the software, including my own. That is why *I* want to
contribute by making packages for Debian.
Now, with you spouting off about how "Debian" is about this and that
instead of how *YOU* are about this and that is doing exactly what you are
thinking I am doing... Denying people the right to decide what the ideal
should be.
In all of your messages there really is no clear delination between
Manoj, the individual, and Manoj speaking from inside Debian.
> Steve> I am not calling Debian names, I am pointing out that you have
> Steve> an attitude of religious zealotry. Please, do not put words
> Steve> into my mouth or read things into my words which are clearly
> Steve> not there.
> One that has the attitude of religious zelaotry is generally
> called a religious zealot. I call this calling names. Try not to hide
> behind sophistry.
*sigh*
See what I mean by there is no clear deliniation?
>>> 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.
"Calling us names does not change it." Us? As in Debian? No, I am not
calling Debian names. That comment was directed at *YOU*, Manoj, not Debian.
*YOU*. *YOU* are exhibiting the behavior of a religious zealot.
> have to promote commercial software. Nothing says I can't begrudge
> proprietary software, as lng as I do not object and provide the
> infrastructure. Read #4 yourself.
Read my messages. It is when you speak for the project as a whole that I
take offense. I don't give a rat's rear what you think or say so long as it
is not projected onto the project as a whole. Your continual use of "us" and
"we" either means that you are royalty and we don't know it or that you are
projecting your views upon the project as a whole.
> I too make provisions that you can use such software. (Hint:
> one of my packages is non-free).
Angband, my one addiction.
> nothing says I have to like it. (If you think otherwise: show me
> where it says we have to like proprietary software; or we can't
> begrudge people using proprietary, as long as we do not *OBJECT* to
> it, and continue to provide support. Go ahead. Quote chapter and
> verse, please).
See, this we again. See why I am up at arms. Manoj, let me spell it out
for you. "We" includes me and I do not begrudge people using commercial
software. "We" includes me and I take offense that you are casting your bias
onto me because I happen to be in the same group that you are.
"We" includes you and if were to talk about "we" as you are and cast my bias
onto "us" I'm sure you'd take offense.
> In *my* opinion, it is. Are you telling me what to think now?
When you cast it onto Debian as a whole, which includes me, I'm advising
you to take a step back and understand what, exactly, it is that you're
saying.
> Where does ti say I can't begridge your choices, as long as I
> do not object, and continue to provide support? Are you attempting
> to dictate my attitude to proprietary software? The DFSG does not so
> compell me.
It does not compell either way. That is why you and I can be a part of
the same project even though we have different views. Are you catching on
yet?
> >> 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> What makes you think I am trying to force my views on you? I
> Steve> am just pointing out that you seem to be blinded to certain
> Steve> passages in the very contract you say you stand by.
> Where? What line? Quote me where it tells me what atitude I
> have to have towardxs the prorietary software I have to support, and
> not object to. Show me where it says I cant begrudge it.
I have, almsot all of item #4. I have stated it twice. And since you
have taken the "we" in your passage above you are speaking of Debian as a
whole, not Manoj the individual. Let me quote it again...
"We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds
of computing environment."
A commercial computing environment is covered in that, is it not?
Remember, you're the one who is taking the "we" stance above, casing your
bias on the project as a whole. I did not write those words for you, I am
merely pointing out what you are doing.
> As a point of clarification: at the moment, I hold no post in
> the Debian heirarchy (at least until the constitution us ratified),
> and even then I still shall retain the right to voice my opinion. I
> do not speak for the project.
Your words speak otherwise.
"We don't."
^^
"We do not promote it..."
^^
"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 fource your views on us?"
^^
Each of those words, from just *ONE* paragraph, references a group of
people. If you're not speaking for Debian as a group, and you claim you're
speaking for yourself, then why, exactly, the plural form?
--
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: