[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org> a tapoté :

> Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 12:30:21 +0200 :
> > The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
> > "collection of software", the Debian project is purposeless.
> It is indeed dedicated to the Debian OS, but it doesn't do only the
> Debian OS.  It also does contrib and non-free.
> And user support.  And collaboration with other projects and
> distributions.  And collaboration with standards organisations.  And
> (a bit of) political lobbying (see the large red stuff against
> software patents on http://www.debian.org/).

All these activities are in the Debian project because of the Debian

Even contrib and non-free, which are normally not part of Debian
(project or OS).

> > If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
> > project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is
> > somehow inconsistent.
>   The DFSG are for the Debian OS.  Not for the Debian project.  Please
> stop mixing these two notions, they are not identical.

You failed to convince me. But if it helps you to see things that way,
feel free to do it...

> > Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always follows its
> > rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation.
>   I'm not sure the GNU project is more consistent than the Debian
> project is: its major goal is to provide freedom to the users, yet it
> publishes non-free documentation

This is a mistake.
It publishes free documentation according to GNU, non-free according
to Debian.

Please pay attention to the fact that different definitions exists of
some concepts.

> > If the Debian project rules cannot be always followed by Debian
> > Developers when they are working to achieve the Debian goal (the
> > Debian OS) and are not doing any harm to this goal (the Debian OS),
> > these rules are flawed.
>   Do you realise that the Debian project has more than one goal maybe?
> The Debian OS may be the main one, but it is not the only one.

Which other goals?

> > What the Debian project is currently doing when he publish his
> > official logo is likely saying "well, DFSG cannot apply to any
> > software part of Debian", unless you play with the words by
> > pretending that the _official logo_ is not part of Debian because
> > it's not packaged in main (funny to consider that the symbol of a
> > project is not part of the project, very unusual).
>   It's not playing on words.  It's just how things are.  When you buy
> a car from brand X, you don't get any rights on the trademark X, or on
> the X logo.

Yes, and I do not claim that the logo Renault on my car is not part of
my car.

> > At the contrary of what is often said here, the DFSG are not so
> > clear when it comes to this kind of complex cases.
>   Yes they are.  They apply to "stuff in main".  Period.
> > This logo issue can be seen like a political leader's wife asking the
> > man of the street to give coins to some kind of IRS while she get very
> > expensive holidays paid by the State. Sure, both things are not
> > clearly linked, but when you ask people to behave, you should behave
> > everytime too.
>   That's a bit far-fetched, isn't it?  Or are you also implying that
> the Debian project members shouldn't ever be allowed near non-free
> software either, even for their daily job?

If their daily job is paid by Debian and for Debian (excluding
non-free and contrib, which are not in any sense par of Debian) , I
think they should not be using proprietary software.

> > And if you are not able to follow your own principles, you have to
> > review these principles that apparently does not fit for you,
> > despite your goodwill.
>   And that's how the FSF and the GNU project produce non-free
> documentation, is it?  Oh, sorry, I forgot, the freedom criteria only
> applies to software released as software, not software embedded in
> documentation.

Yes, you forgot that there are several definitions of freedom around.

>   Don't get me wrong: I have a tremendous respect for the FSF and
> the GNU project and what they do, but they shouldn't give Debian
> lessons on consistency of policies.

I speak for myself. And anybody on earth is entitled to talk about
Debian or the FSF.

> Submit bugs where our policies are not being followed, yes.  Tell us
> they are inconsistent, no.  Not before the GFDL problem is fixed.

Your policies are also mine, as I'm a Debian applicant and a Debian
user. And at this point I think that some parts of the policy are not
as clear one may think at start.

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: