Re: Removal of non-free
* Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca> [030522 06:24]:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> > first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> > definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
> > disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
> > non-free software.
>
> Perhaps it would be nice to make a concession to Free Software.
> I remember a time when it was argued that there was no free web browser,
> and that we should keep non-free. But this piece of important software
> has a free implementation.
>
> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
> of our Social Contract?
Uff, this argument again...
I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
in some way. I want things to become free by getting supperior or at
least usable alternatives (not by closing my eyes and leaving those
helpless, that cannot), and the non-free things to draw as few labor
as possible. I believe havinig non-free areas ourselves is the best
way to achieve this. It radically dicharges pressure to include or
leave anything non-free in Debian. (And thus makes it easier to
apply pressure to change the licence). And having it implemented
as satallite gives us not only control which things get in and to
throw things out, but also makes sure it does not draw labor to create
alternative infrastructure.
Removing it would be similar to catholic church in Germany giving
away the chance to talk to women wanting to abort to show them
alternatives to their desire, because that way they did not want to
give the acknowledgement of the talk...
This only for the case nobody else answers because the discussion
arised to often lately. Anwers please not to debian-legal but somewhere
else...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: