On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:22:01PM +0400, olive wrote: olive> Nathanael Nerode wrote: olive> >"olive" <olive.lin@versateladsl.be> wrote: olive> > olive> >>I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if olive> > olive> >there were in accordance to the FSF. olive> > olive> >I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending olive> >free software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal olive> >has proved better at guaranteeing the FSF's 'four freedoms' in practice olive> >than RMS, what with the GFDL and all. olive> olive> It's true that I find the GFDL not "ideal" (which in my opinion is olive> different from non-free) and it is a shame that it has been adopted by olive> the FSF. However it is not because another person have done a mistake olive> that it become an excuse to do the same thing. On the last years, Debian olive> have had a tendency to declare non-free license that are declared free olive> or open source by everyone else and I think it will lose its credibility olive> if it continues on this way. Both the FSF and the opensource movement olive> have understood the difference between non-ideal and non-free license olive> but Debian apprently did not. Without taking a stance on the GFDL issue, I agree with the fact that Debian should be cautious not to go to far in it's assessment of licenses. In my view, a license can be free and yet not ideal, the two are different. And I feel that Debian should focus on freeness, not perfection. To me, copylefted licenses are better than non copylefted ones because they do more to advance the cause of free software, but it would be ludicrous to consider non copylefted licenses as non-free. Olive has a good point. olive> olive> >Let's face it: the FSF didn't create a full free-software system. Debian olive> >did. olive> olive> Debian mainly package software done by others. There is few if any olive> software copyrighted by Debian. To say that Debian "create" an operating olive> system is greatly exagerated. Although this packaging is important and olive> make the software more accessible; it is not in my view the most olive> important thing. I could, with some effort, install Linux from scratch olive> myself but I would be totally unable to reprogram all the GNU software. olive> This is true however that FSF leadership can be discussed since there olive> are many important softwares on a typical GNU/Linux distribution are not olive> from GNU (xorg, KDE, Linux, etc...). Again, I agree. Debian has done a great job, and is one of the major players of the free software community, and the world would be much worse off without it. But let's not get carried away and overestimate it's importance either. It is not the only one to have made a free system. Yorick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature