Re: Debian Free Software (FSF) or Open Source? (was Re; non-cd...)
robert havoc pennington wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > Yes I am very aware that the Open Source Definition is identical to the
> > Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> I don't get your point then.
>
> > > I think the contrast you're describing between free software and open
> > > source does not exist. Open source is just a marketing name for free
> > > software. Thus Debian is both, not one or the other.
> >
> > I think the contrast does defiantly exists. If it does not then why
> > would Web Review say
> >
> ...
> >
> > Source (http://webreview.com/wr/pub/freeware/whatsnew.html)
> >
>
> Yes, the article is comparing the two terms "free" and "open source."
> Richard Stallman likes the name free because it emphasizes the moral side
> of things; "open source" is supposed to sell the software to business, and
> that's why it was created (in part, a new name was needed so it could be
> trademarked).
>
> However, both terms refer to the same thing. Qt, MySQL, and whatever else
> you want in the main Debian distribution can't even use the term Open
> Source to describe themselves due to the trademark. Qt uses the term
> "free" all the time, but they are not according to most people's
> definition of "free software."
I never said they were Open Source. But just free. Not trully free but
free enough.
> Are you aware that the contrib and non-free directories are maintained in
> exactly the same way main is? There's nothing lower quality about them.
> They're just different directories, and they're not on the official CD (as
> much because Debian could be sued as for ideological reasons).
Very much so.
>
> > Yes, but the exact goals are diffrent and I think Debain's goal--even
> > though the Open Source Movement used Debians defination for the Open
> > Source Definition--is more toward the FSP.
>
> Not really. There were and are Debian representatives involved in the
> whole Open Source thing.
So you went to use Debian *primary* as a model of Open Source or to
promote linux?
>
> 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.
> 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...
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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: