Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
On 28 Jun 1998 03:48:20 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You just don't get it, do you?
I do get it, better than you do.
> I can buy a CD.
I can buy a game.
> I can then loan it to a friend.
I can loan it to a friend.
> I can buy a book, and all my freinds can use it.
And all my friends can use it.
> We can swap books till we are blue in the face.
We can swap applications until we're blue in the face.
> We can each buy one book of a series, and read the whole series.
We can each buy one game of a series, and play the whole series.
> People can make copies of CD's, and use it in their cars.
People can make copies of their software and use it on another of their
computers.
> Try doing that with MS office.
Why limit it to MS Office? Try it with any commercial game and or
application and you'll find it is no different.
When you purchase a book or a CD, and take that in the context of a
single user license, it all falls into place. Remember, in each of your
examples only one person has physical posession of the item in question. You
can't have the CD in two CD players at once. You can't very well read a book
with more than one person unless they are really cozy and read at the same
pace.
You can read a book aloud, you can play music to a group, and you can run
software to help someone with his book report or play a game on your
computer.
However, when you copy that CD for a friend, or copy the book for a
friend, or copy the piece of software for a friend all three are the same.
It is called piracy. That is, of course, unless the license allows for it.
> { ridiculous [and flawed] analogies deleted}
Try comprehending them sometime, Manoj, instead of dismissing them
outright because they do not fit into your limited world view. There is a
reason why I chose music and books. They share the same properties that
software does when it comes to why people think software "should" be free
without sitting down and thinking about how foolish their stance is when
taken to an extreme.
It is a creative endeavor made be either individuals or groups.
A group of programmers/musicians/authors create the work.
It is written only once.
They do so only once. From then on (barring live performances for the
musicions, which is a different matter) it is all duplication onto CDs or
paper.
It is easily copied both in physically and digitally.
Programs are traditionally copied digitally but can be printed out. CDs
are normally physical but MP3s are chaning all of that. Books, well, books
are just a collection of words and images. PDF works quite well for
transfering that in a readable format, but ASCII has always been with us.
So let's take your example of a CD and move it from the physical to the
digital. As I have pointed out, a CD cannot be in two CD players at the same
time. That is why you can lend it to a friend, get it back, trade it out,
whatever. It is because of the physical limitation. But now let's take my
favorite CD right now, "Zoot Suit Riot" by the Cherry Poppin' Daddies. I'll
make MP3s of all the tracks for you and you can FTP them.
Guess what, that is illegal. It is called piracy.
Now let's reverse it. I'll make MP3s of all the tracks and then give you
the physical CD. Guess what, illegal again, called piracy.
Now, let's break it down. What is the music, really, on the CD? Data.
It is nothing more than data that our machines read and process into music.
So, if me giving you data from that CD is illegal, and me keeping the
data while giving you the CD is illegal, does it matter what the data is?
Software, music, books. All are just data at the core in the digital
world.
Now, let's go back out. You challenged me to do the same with MS Office.
Treat it as data, nothing more. I can't give you the CD and continue to use
the data. That is illegal and is called piracy no matter what the data is.
I can't give you the data and retain the CD. Same thing.
But what if I uninstall MS Office, do not retain the data, and give you the
CD.
Whoops. That is perfectly acceptable.
So, I ask again, do you listen ONLY to GPL'd music and read ONLY GPL'd
books?
> 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.
It is not an attack when it is the truth. A religious zealot will
blindly follow a course of action or idealogy to radical and extreme measures
without serious consideration for the consiquences of their actions or why
they are doing so. They will also blindly hold their faith in the face of
evidence or arguements which are quite strong without providing reasonable
counter arguements.
>{ ridiculous [and flawed] analogies deleted}
My analogy is not ridiculous or flawed because all three are just ordered
data. All three can be passed around both in the physical and digital
medium. All three are creative. All three can be copied with ease. The
only flawed analogy is in yours above where you are not regarding the
limitations of the physical medium as the same as the intellectual
limitations of the software license.
> 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.
A majority does not equate to all.
> 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.
Show me where you, as an individual, dictate that begrudging is what the
project, as a whole, does? The DSC and DFSG dictate neither.
> However, some things do apply to the project as a whole.
Good. Now show me where I have refuted anything which does apply to the
project as a whole?
I have not refuted that KDE not be placed in the main distribution. In
fact, I agreed with it.
I have refuted that the "project" begrudges commercial software and
reluctantly supports commercial endeavors. The project has no feelings one
way or the other, the individuals inside the project do and the individuals
do not dictate the tone of the project as a whole. You begrudge commercial
software, I don't. In the context of the project, however, neither of us is
right. If we try to force our views on the project as a whole, however, we
are wrong. I am not trying to force my views on the project, I am just
trying to get you to stop forcing yours.
> 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.
I have not refuted that, have I? No. I am pointing out that the same
contract also does not attach a negative stigma to non-free software and that
your personal bias should not be projected on the document, the project, or
the individuals that adhere to the document and make up the project.
> Have I ever said otherwise? We (the debian developers) can
> still begrudge prpreitary software. I still stand by that.
Sure, you can. But the project does not.
> 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.
Nothing states you have to dislike 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.
Where does it say you have to dislike it?
> 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.
Yet shortly after that you say you're speaking as an individual. If
you're speaking about all the developers what happens when I do sign on as a
developer? You don't speak for me. Not now, not then, at least not on this
topic. I won't say that we won't agree on something, but I refute that you
can speak for "all" of anyone.
> Sure. Support. Begrudge. No objection. No like. (do smaller
> sentences make it easier?)
You tell me, I can always make my sentences shorter if you like. Oooh,
wait, was that an attack? Tsk, tsk.
> 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.
As we (debian developers) are not compelled to dislike proprietary
software. This is not a personal opinion. This is a fact.
> Correct. You can not force Debian developers to ``promote''
> proprietary software.
You can not force Debian developers to not "promote" proprietary
software, either.
> 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?
Never lost it. I'm still about two levels past you and waiting for you
to catch up.
> 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?
Right, and that is what I object to. You are casting your personal bias
onto a group of people, some of which may not agree with your personal bias.
I'm not debating anything else here. Well, ok, as of this message I am, but
when I jumped into this thread it was because you were making a blanket
statement of your bias over a group of people which included me and was
something I, personally, did not agree with. I'm happy that, what, four
messages later you've finally come to the realization that I'm not arguing
for the inclusion of KDE into Debian, not arguing what is and isn't free, not
arguing what the DSC and DFSG means to you. I'm arguing you applying what it
means to *YOU* to *EVERYONE* associated with it regardless of whether or not
they agree with you.
--
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: