Re: Debian Free Software (FSF) or Open Source? (was Re; non-cd...)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Hi,
> >>"Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net> writes:
>
> Kevin> As you said below we are working from a different definition
> Kevin> of free.
>
> Do you understand the situation now? As far as Debian is
> concerned, free is defined by the DFSG? When you talk to
> Debian to ask it to do something, you should understand
> exactly what we mean by free.
Yes I do know what you mean by free.
>
> Kevin> Yes but rms is an extremist (as well as many people in the Debian
> Kevin> development team seam to be) and esr is much more of a pragmatist. I
> Kevin> much more side with esr and think that rms needs (as well as some on the
> Kevin> Debian development team) need to lighten up. I don't like extremist
> Kevin> although being an extremist does get your view herd.
>
> It is easy to label people and attempt to dismiss their
> argument. I am offended by your statements -- you can't just seem to
> understand that your view point is not shared by everyone else. You
> seem to take comfort in the fact that anyone who disagrees with you
> is an extremist.
>
> Hobgoblins of small minds, I say.
I am not dismissing his arguments. RMS really started thre free
software movement and her deserves due credit for that. Extremist are
often needed to get a movement started. However in order to gain public
acceptance, some pragmatist who understand the issues at hand are
needed. That is what the main people behind the new OS movement and
they deserve credit too.
>
> Kevin> In order to work get your view herd one needs to relax your principles
> Kevin> just enough to work with the general public esr has done that, rms has
> Kevin> not.
>
> What if one is not really concerned with popularity or getting
> ones view heard or world domination or whatever? What if one is
> content with doing what one deems morally right? What if one is
> stubborn and holds to ones ideals? Oh, I see, we are
> extremists. Compromise your ideals, and conform, or else we label you
> unsound.
Now you are reading too much into what I said. If you don't care about
popularity that is fine. However I, on the other hand, do. There is
nothing wrong with your viewpoint and nothing wrong with you. And no I
do not want you to compromise your ideals.
>
> Kevin> Truefully I don't see what the problem is with not being able to modify
> Kevin> the Qt library. After all you can't modify your computers CPU...
>
> Yuo do not _have_ to see the problem. I do. The people who
> insist on open source/DFSG/GNU licences do. We are not asking you to
> modify your behaviour. Why do you want us to modify ours?
Yes I was orignally asking you to rexamine your behaviors but obviously
that is not going to happen so I am going to give up as it will just end
in a flame war.
>
> >> 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".
>
> Kevin> Yes, I am and many many many people see that as a REAL problem
> Kevin> just like how KDE is working from a diffrent defination.
>
> Umm, what is the problem again? That your definition of free
> is not that of the free software community? There is an easy
> solution, you know. Just accept the DFSG as being the definition of
> free software. end pf problem.
And you are not asking me to modify my behavior?
> Kevin> However unfortuanlly these diffrense keep Debian and GNOME away from KDE
> Kevin> and I think that is a real real shame.
>
> All KDE has to do is change and the differences melt
> away. (sorry, I couldn't resist that. I mean, you ask us to change,
> when the change can equallly well come from the other camp)
It seems that the stupid Qt things is keeping you apart. KDE insists on
using it and the free software community refuses to accept them due to
that. I wish there was a middle ground but I see none.
> Kevin> However I two think that Debian overall is better than Red
> Kevin> Hat. What I want to see is it become more end user friendly.
>
> There we agree.
>
> Kevin> To me the user interface is the most important selling point.
>
> Well, it is not really that important to me, but I can see it
> is important to people, and I am all for it.
I am glad to hear that.
>
> Kevin> I want to have a Linux distribution this is as nice to use as Red Hat
> Kevin> but is developed by a community like Debian however with standards that
> Kevin> are not so high that the band using software like Qt the KDE is based
> Kevin> on.
>
> As people have said before, if you want it badly enough, you
> can start it right now. You can even base it on top of Debian. You
> may even get a whole bunch of people to join you.
I know and I might but I really think that would be counter productive
and I have too many other projects I am working on already.
>
> Kevin> ***
> Kevin> Why? I think KDE is a great project that might fade away and only
> Kevin> because it relayed on Qt and the freewhere community inability to accept
> Kevin> that. Thus they ignore it. Something is wrong here.
> Kevin> ****
>
> Yup. KDE should have changed, or better still, not gone with a
> non-free library.
Like I said there seams to be no middle ground.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: