Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]
On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>
> > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> > GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
> > would he have any different desire for a set of GNU packages delivered to
> > a non-Linux platform?
>
> Because that particular non-Linux platform is not a free software
> platform.
So, neither is Sun OS. GNU software runs just fine in that proprietary OS.
What's the difference?
>
> > We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed
> > on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anything to say about packages
> > installable on M$?
>
> We, and the FSF, do not object to the use of GNU software on other
> platforms. But that doesn't make it a GNU system.
According the the FSF, any distribution that uses the complete set of GNU
tools IS a GNU system, no matter what you want to call it.
>
> > This is just as much a Debian project as debhelp, apt-get, and other
> > utility projects. How is this different from them, asside from the obvious
> > fact that it is intended to run on a proprietary OS?
>
> Because it means for the first time that some Debian users will not
> get or have hope of getting a free operating system. Do we want that?
> I certainly don't.
Your logic if flawed. Just because I can use Debian on my Winblows machine
at work does NOT restrict me from ever using a free OS. It doens't keep me
from obtaining Debian, and using it.
All I see is more use of Free Software, not less.
>
> > So, where is the license for the arm, sparc, alpha, or for that matter the
> > i386 port? These are all Debian projects that are supported to one degree
> > or another by actual Debian developers who do the work. To argue that this
> > port is somehow different for it's target OS non-freeness is just silly.
>
> Really? Isn't Debian all about free software? Now you're saying that
> it's silly for freeness to matter about something!
No, I'm saying that it is silly to suggest that Debian becomes less free
when run on a proprietary OS.
>
> > Trying to argue that there is some legal, or moral reason this port should
> > not be made is not reasonable in my oppinion. Suggesting that it isn't
> > part of the Debian project is ... contradictory at least.
>
> Really? There certainly is a moral reason: we, the Debian Project,
> stand for free software. Making non-free operating systems easier to
> use is something you may want to do, but as a moral matter, I (and
> many others) object to the use of Debian resources to support non-free
> systems.
But making Free Software more useful IS in our interest. Creating free
software that runs on proprietary OS's gives more freedom of choice and it
doesn't compromise the freeness of the delivered software, any more than
my running proprietary software on a Debian system compromises the
freeness of Debian.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: