defaming now?
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030912 11:50]:
> > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> > > become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to
> > > the DFSG.
>
> > Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines?
>
> Perhaps you should read the Social Contract,
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract and re-do your "Philosophy and
> Procedures". There stands e.g.
> | the applicant must agree with these principles
I completely agree with these principles. Unless you can prove that I
disagree with the social contract, please stop defaming.
But I don't think that you'll bring here the proof of your defaming
behavior so I'm going to proves that my point of view about
philosophical/political/historical text is not at all contradicting
the social contract:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
software. As there are many definitions of free software, we
include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free"
below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free
software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an
item of non-free software.
No problem for me. Philosophical/political/historical text included
in some manuals are not software. It does not creates dependancies and
it does not change the right to use/read/modify/distribute the
software.
It has no consequences on software usability or functionalities.
I think it would be interesting to consider making distinction between
software and manuals but I know that this distinction does not exists
currently and I'll never include invariant
philosophical/political/historical text in my contribution to Debian,
because I accepted to follow the Debian rules (I never said that I
would disregard the rules when contributing to Debian)
2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
3. We Won't Hide Problems
Nothing involved here.
4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
I think our users need good manuals but I'm not sure they have
troubles with the invariant section as they are.
That's why I'm writing here, trying to find out if there was a middle
way between the GNU position and the Debian position.
Now I clearly understand that this issue is probably not going to be
resolved and that the GNU manuals will probably enter non-free,
because they are truly non-free _software_ because of some parts of
their content, because these parts were not meant to be free
_software_.
But it does not at all mean that I did not accepted to follow the DFSG
when contributing to Debian, despite the fact that I'm totally fine
with political/philosophical/historical non-being free _software_.
I remind you that when you agree to follow principles of a group, you
agree to follow this principles when you are contributing to this
group. What you do in your life apart from the group is your problem
-- but indeed generaly when you volunteer, it means that the rules of
the group are totally fine for you.
I volunteer also for the GNU project. But it happens from time to time
that I have to use non-free software, despite the fact that I dislike
non-free software. But I would never do that in my volunteering
activity for GNU.
If you truly think that everybody volunteering for a project must
respect totally the rules of this project in whatever they do in their
life, it means that every contributor to Debian and GNU (there's
plenty of persons in this case) must resign from one of the projects.
It means also that a contributor to Debian should stop volunteering if
he have to contribute in his professional life to a proprietary
software, despite his feelings in favor of Free Software.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: