Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
Hi,
>>"Steve" == Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> writes:
Steve> 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.
Steve> Make free music a greater priority. Proprietary music divides
Steve> people, and prevents a sense of community. One is a mere
Steve> listener, dependant on the provider of the music, unable to
Steve> share with friends, feeding ondes dependency with more money
Steve> to the people who provide the music that made us dependent.
You just don't get it, do you? I can buy a CD. I can then loan
it to a friend. I can buy a book, and all my freinds can use it. We
can swap books till we are blue in the face. We can each buy one book
of a series, and read the whole series.
People can make copies of CD's, and use it in their cars.
Try doing that with MS office.
{ ridiculous [and flawed] analogies deleted}
Steve> "Calling us names does not change it." Us? As in Debian?
Steve> No, I am not calling Debian names. That comment was directed
Steve> at *YOU*, Manoj, not Debian.
Steve> *YOU*. *YOU* are exhibiting the behavior of a religious zealot.
As I said, ad hiominem attacks are a sign that your arguments
have no intrinsic weight and need to be bolstered by personal
attacks.
>> 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.
Steve> Read my messages. It is when you speak for the project as a
Steve> whole that I take offense. I don't give a rat's rear what you
Steve> think or say so long as it is not projected onto the project
Steve> as a whole. Your continual use of "us" and "we" either means
Steve> that you are royalty and we don't know it or that you are
Steve> projecting your views upon the project as a whole.
I do think there are others who feel this way. From previous
discussion, I even believe the majority of debvelopers may believe as
I do.
>> 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).
Steve> See, this we again. See why I am up at arms. Manoj, let me
Steve> spell it out for you. "We" includes me and I do not begrudge
Steve> people using commercial software. "We" includes me and I take
Steve> offense that you are casting your bias onto me because I
Steve> happen to be in the same group that you are. "We" includes
Steve> you and if were to talk about "we" as you are and cast my bias
Steve> onto "us" I'm sure you'd take offense.
I did mean we as a project here. Show me where we, the debian
developers, have to "not begrudge" proprietary software. We here
means debian developers.
>> In *my* opinion, it is. Are you telling me what to think now?
Steve> When you cast it onto Debian as a whole, which includes me,
Steve> I'm advising you to take a step back and understand what,
Steve> exactly, it is that you're saying.
I do. I can't help what you think. Unless Ian speaks with a
project leaders hat on, every one else speaks their opinions here. I
happen to believe other believe as I do. However, some things do
apply to the project as a whole.
The social contract is one. Debian developers have ratified
(and people joining after that have agreed to read, understand, and
agree to the social contract as well). So we, the debian developers,
are committed, to make sure Debian remains 100% free
software. Anything that is non free or depends on non freee software
is not a part of debian.
Steve> It does not compell either way. That is why you and I can be
Steve> a part of the same project even though we have different
Steve> views. Are you catching on yet?
Have I ever said otherwise? We (the debian developers) can
still begrudge prpreitary software. I still stand by that.
>> 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.
Steve> I have, almsot all of item #4.
Item 4 says we support non free software, and we do not object
to commercial software. Nothing states we (debian developers) have to
like it.
Steve> I have stated it twice.
Stating #4 as many times as you wish does not answer the
question: where does it say we have to ungrudgingly support and not
object to non free software? Supooer it, yes, do not object to it,
yes, like it, no.
Steve> And since you have taken the "we" in your passage above you
Steve> are speaking of Debian as a whole, not Manoj the individual.
Steve> Let me quote it again...
I was speaking about all the developers. Not just me personally.
Steve> "We will support the needs of our users for operation in many
Steve> different kinds of computing environment."
Support. Not ungrudgingly support. I support non free
software. I begrudge it. We (debian developers) are allowed to
begrudge it. We (debian developers) have chosen not to make it a part
of debian. We (debian developers) are committed to making sure Debian
remains 100% free.
Steve> A commercial computing environment is covered in that, is it not?
Sure. Support. Begrudge. No objection. No like. (do smaller
sentences make it easier?)
Steve> Remember, you're the one who is taking the "we" stance above,
Steve> casing your bias on the project as a whole. I did not write
Steve> those words for you, I am merely pointing out what you are
Steve> doing.
And I stand behind the we. We (debian developers) are not
compelled to like proprietary software. This is not a personal
opinion. This is a fact.
Steve> "We don't."
Steve> ^^
Correct.
Steve> "We do not promote it..."
Steve> ^^
Correct. We are committed to making debian be 100% free
software. No non-free software, or even free software that depends on
ti, can be part of Debian. OOOOH, a resounding promotion of
proprietary software. Bah.
Steve> "You can't force us to use it either."
Steve> ^^
Correct. You can not force Debian developers to ``promote''
proprietary software.
Steve> "We have taken a stance; our stance is in the DFSG."
Steve> ^^
Entirely correct. The DFSG defines what the Debian project
considers to be free. The DSG states we are committed to being 100%
free. WE are committed to being 100% free. Get it?
Steve> Each of those words, from just *ONE* paragraph, references a
Steve> group of people. If you're not speaking for Debian as a
Steve> group, and you claim you're speaking for yourself, then why,
Steve> exactly, the plural form?
Because these happen to be the facts of the case. As in this
message, I use we to mean the developers, all of us, or, in other
words, the debian project. Not just me. OK?
manoj
--
"I've heard about these cult jamborees. It's an international goon
gathering. Lots of howling and drinking... Orgiastic worship of
heathen idols... Great looking chicks in diaphanous robes..." Sam
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: