Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality

[Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org>]

Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:20:19PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> >> The use of non-free icons if IMO a perfect use case for non-free.
>> > ... and also yet another case when to make their life comfortable one
>> > should enable non-free.
> [...]
>> The main idea of non-free is to have such a pragmatic approach here.
>> 
>> And the "put the non-free logos into non-free" solution would fit into
>> the do-it-yourself pragmatic of Debian: If you feel that there should be
>> a free alternative, just create one. When an alternative icon is good
>> enough that people will switch, then non-free is not needed anymore. Or
>> convince the copyright owner to make the logos free. I see no real point
>> in a heated discussion then.
>
> Some trademark owners might be very annoyed if their name appears next
> to an icon that does not belong to their brand.

So this would give us some pressure to the owner to make their trademark
DFSG compatible?

> You might call your proposition pragmatic, but the more pragmatic
> choice would be to keep the icons in main.

If someone wants to have a DFSG compatible system, then he should be
able to get it -- which means that he should be allowed to change
whatever he wants (and to publish it). Then he does not get the original
icons.

This who can live with icons that are not legally editable can just
enable non-free and use the icons. I don't see any complication here.

Keeping the icons in main means the we revoke the choice whether to have
a free system. I personally always just switch on non-free + contrib,
but I respect those who don't.

Best regards

Ole