Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> said:
> Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
>> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should
>> > not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the
>> > other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a
>> > solution.
>> The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think
>> that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits,
>> and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since
>> the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument.
> So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our
> users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in
> our users' best interest.
Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is
often useful to people -- which is why the company is in
business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the
premise that libre software is better.
If you think that this premise is flawed, then I wonder how
you passed the philosophy section of the NM process.
> Either way results in an action in conflict with the social
> contract. The question is: what's the least of the two evils?
Or, who gets to decide what is the users best interest?
> That's a judgement call we have to make, and it may well be
> different if you make it, as compared to if I make it. Especially
> since it's not clearly defined anywhere what's actually 'in the best
> interest of our users'.
As a consumer of food, my predilection as a child was
overwhelmingly in favour of fast food -- tasty, convenient, and yet,
according to my health care professional, inordinately bad for me.
Non free software, despite its allure, is, in my opinion, bad
for the users.
>> And you think our users are best served by non-free software?
> Our users are best served by useful, working software.
Even when it is not free?
Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any
other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we
make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In
this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers,
buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. Fred
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C