Re: non-free --> non-dfsg
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> > Ossama> Looking at it from the author's point of view, the author may
> > Ossama> feel that Debian's definition of "free" is wrong and his is
> > Ossama> right. So he may also think about Debian that "there is
> > Ossama> indeed something wrong that they should know about."
> >
> > This is all very interesting, and so on, but where is this
> > leading? All kinds of people may have all kinds of opinion about
> > Debian. The point is?
>
> The point is that it easy to say "I am right and you are wrong." Who
> makes us right and them wrong?
>
Sorry to but in here, but there is something wrong with your argument.
This isn't a question of us being right, and them being wrong. The DFSG is
a definition of free software that Debian imposes upon itself, and only
itself. Validation of this definition can be infered from the fact that
the "Open Source" movement adopted it. Such validation doesn't imply that
all other points of view are wrong for those viewpoints, only for
Debian's POV.
The DFSG defines what Debian believes to be Free Software, and our most
recently approved Constitution defines how we have agreed to work together
as a group. These two documents (in association with the supporting Policy
documents) define the foundations of the development process and goals
within the Debian Organization.
It is hard for me to fathom how someone (with non-destructive goals) might
desire to contribute to a project with goals or principles that differ
from their own. Debian has very specific, and sometimes unusual, goals.
It is not unreasonable that we make some effort to assure that new
developers understand, and agree with, those goals.
For Debian, the DFSG is "correct". There isn't an absolute correctness
anywhere in this belief. The fact that programs that don't satisfy those
Guidelines are excluded from the distribution is our right to exersize
that correctness. It imposes no larger "moral" judgement, although many
feel free to suggest that it does present a position so based.
>From the Debian point of view, I am free to distribute material that the
DFSG considers "non-free" without recrimination, and even with some praise
from my fellow developers. (referring to my book)
If I try to impose my version of sofware freedom by pushing for a change
in the DFSG, I find myself the first one to object! As a Debian developer
I fully support the DFSG and our social contract. As a free thinking
individual with my own expriences to draw from, I see points I would make
stronger and things that I might change because my personal goals are
broader that those of Debian. It is important that I distinguish between
what I do with Debian, from the other things that I do for Free Software,
and not try to impose tasks on Debian that I should perform elsewhere.
For these stated reasons, I am opposed to any fundamental changes in the
DFSG. If there are specific points that need to be clarified, then we need
to fix them. Just as with software, I'm not sure we squash the "bugs" in
the DFSG by trying to "re-write" it from the ground up. A discussion of
patches to the existing document seems more likely to "fix" anything that
is unclear, without giving up the ground already gained by the current
document.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: