Re: Dissatisfied w/Debian? Make something 'pure'.
According to Craig Brozefsky:
> Chip Salzenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I honestly don't see a less-free movement as being nearly as dangerous
> > to Debian as the more-free movement. Pragmatism doesn't fire up
> > enthusiasm like zealous purity does, and misdirected enthusiasm is a
> > lot more destructive than apathy.
> Considering the statement in the SC that Debian is 100% Free Software,
> a less-free movement within Debian would violate the Social Contract [...]
Not if the DSFG were changed. Redefining terms ("free") is a powerful
tool of propaganda ... for good and for bad.
> > I'm making the point that lots of DFSG-free software isn't RMS-free.
> > So once zealots have lopped off non-free and contrib, what's next?
> > I believe that they won't stop until everything non-GPL is gone. So
> > let's just hold the line where it is and carry on.
> This insinuation is groundless.
It's not an insinuation, it's a prediction. I'm prepared to be proven
wrong. But I'd rather see the resolution defeated, and never find out.
> The FSF doesn't even believe that only the (L)GPL counts as Free
> Software [...]
Granted. This isn't empty speculation, it's informed speculation.
RMS, and thus the FSF would rather see effort go into GPL'd code than
non-GPL'd code. And the simple fact of that preference, in and of
itself, has resulted in led to unjust criticism of e.g. the Apache
project. Are such unfair criticism somehow impossible within Debian?
I think not.
The DSFG is, essentially, an arbitrary standard. It's a *good*
arbitrary standard, I think. But can you really expect it to stand
without challenge once it is the only obstacle to making the Debian
project more, more, ever more ideologically pure? I can't.
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <email@example.com>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K