Re: CC-based proposal (was FDL: no news?)
<posted & mailed>
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> First, let me try to define what I'm calling "non-software":
Stop. Call it "non-programs". Here, when we say "software", we mean "it
ain't hardware".
<snip>
> Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
Well, Debian disagrees. There have been two GRs about this issue as well as
years of discussion. We have very good reasons for disagreeing; namely,
that every valuable freedom for programs has turned out to be a valuable
freedom for other works as well.
<snip>
> 2) We're forgetting section 4 of the SC: "Our priorities are our users
> and free software". It seems to me that some of the DDs i've seen
> posting lately have turned that into "Our priorities are free
> software".
<snip>
> Well, if we forget our users that way, depriving them of what they need
> and want, of facilities others provide them with (documentation is one
> of them, I'd go flamish and mention some firmware as well);
We provide the "non-free" archive for this purpose; to provide software
which some users need and want, but which is not free. There is no excuse
for having it in 'main'.
> I, as a
> user, would probably turn back and find what I need elsewhere than in
> Debian. And I'm pretty confident I'm not an "exception", in such a
> behaviour as a user.
You are an exception if you do not consider the "non-free" archive
sufficient for this purpose.
<snip>
> I do not intend to flame or sound pedantic in here, I just want to make
> sure we, as a project, do not forget who we are "working" for, and
> what it takes to satisfy our *priorities*.
Then educate yourself about the issues first. Read some of the last two
years' discussions and summaries thereof.
> PS: nothing I've said here is private.
Or new.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: