Re: Debian Free Software (FSF) or Open Source? (was Re; non-cd...)
Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> "Not trully free but free enough." Interesting distiction...
>
> Debian claimed, in the "Debian Social Contract" (DSG), that it would
> develop and distribute a "completely free" Linux distribution. The
> problem with this contract is that "completely free" is a bit vague.
> What did we, as Debian, mean by "free". So Debian wrote the Debian
> Free Softare Guidelines (DFSG) to define, for the purposes of the DSG,
> exactly what we meant by "free", in a concrete, non-vague way.
>
> So, you admit that Qt is not truely free, that it doesn't meet the
> DFSG, yet it is "free enough" that we should include it in the
> distribution?
>
> By -definition-, it isn't "free enough"!
As you said below we are working from a different definition of free.
>
> > > Your view seems to be spreading, I'm not sure who's spreading it, but it's
> > > certainly not Eric Raymond and other big proponents of the term "open
> > > source." RMS should start using the term open source just to be sure this
> > > doesn't happen.
> >
> > Please define "my view." To make sure we understand each other.
>
[snip]
>
> As Robert Havoc Pennington points out, the distinction isn't -really-
> there. If anything, the view (IMHO) probably comes from the fact that
> esr and rms have vastly different reasons for embracing FS/OS, but even
> though rms feels that proprietary software is an evil, and esr feels
> that proprietary software is a failed/flawed developement model, the
> -both- have embraced FS/OS as a cure for the evil/flaws of proprietary
> software.
Yes but rms is an extremist (as well as many people in the Debian
development team seam to be) and esr is much more of a pragmatist. I
much more side with esr and think that rms needs (as well as some on the
Debian development team) need to lighten up. I don't like extremist
although being an extremist does get your view herd.
In order to work get your view herd one needs to relax your principles
just enough to work with the general public esr has done that, rms has
not.
Truefully I don't see what the problem is with not being able to modify
the Qt library. After all you can't modify your computers CPU...
> I believe that rms legitimately has a lot of time, energy, and
> emotional involvement with the term "free software", as he effectively
> coined it and has been promoting it (sometimes almost singlehandedly)
> for the past 15 years. I don't begrudge him wanting to retain calling
> what he/we do "free software". Neither do I begrudge those behind
> "Open Source" for wanting to use a more "suit-friendly" name for the
> same concept.
>
> > > Anyway. Please, if you want a non-free distribution, go use SUSE, Caldera,
> > > Slackware, or any other you like. But don't email hundreds of people that
> > > work on free software daily and try to tell them they don't know what free
> > > software is.
> >
> > All those packages are not what I had in mind.
> >
> > I want a system that is free but not completly Open Source...
>
> Then you are working from a different definition of "free" than we are.
> Feel free to make your own distribution (even using the Debian
> packaging system, if you want!) that matches -your- definition of
> "free".
Yes, I am and many many many people see that as a REAL problem just like
how KDE is working from a diffrent defination.
However unfortuanlly these diffrense keep Debian and GNOME away from KDE
and I think that is a real real shame.
>
> >
> > And I in now way trying to tell you they you don't know what free
> > software is. I am trying to say that I think that the debian critical
> > for what to include on the official CD is to limiting and will not allow
> > free software that is not based on truly free software never to become
> > an "official" part of Debian.
> >
> > Truly I think Debian should be a good noncommercial distribution which
> > included stuff that may not be truly Open Source but free enough, not an
> > Open Source distribution of linux. However it is clear that not many
> > other people want that.
>
> Doing a quick comparison with Red Hat 5.1 (based -solely- on a quick
> read of their web page http://www.redhat.com/products/lac.html), I note
> that:
>
> * Debian 2.0 is completely Open Source complient, Red Hat is not.
> * Debian 2.0 will be shipped on a -minimum- of 3 CD's, with binaries
> split across two of them. Red Hat 5.1 is shipped on 2 CD's (binaries,
> source) with an additional CD of crippled commercial software.
>
> I think that these two points are -highly- in favor of Open Source as
> something Real and Working than RH shows.
You are just comparing size. A shallow way to compare things.
However I two think that Debian overall is better than Red Hat. What I
want to see is it become more end user friendly. To me the user
interface is the most important selling point. I don't like the fact
that Red Hat tries to hide the fact that you can use part of Red Hat
without actually buying it. I also don't like the fact that it relays on
crippled commercial software.
I want to have a Linux distribution this is as nice to use as Red Hat
but is developed by a community like Debian however with standards that
are not so high that the band using software like Qt the KDE is based
on.
***
Why? I think KDE is a great project that might fade away and only
because it relayed on Qt and the freewhere community inability to accept
that. Thus they ignore it. Something is wrong here.
****
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: