Re: An amendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
branden@ecn.purdue.edu (Branden Robinson) wrote:
> What do we do in a hypothetical future where non-free software no
> longer exists for general purpose applications? (I.e., the only
> remaining non-free software is so proprietary -- or so marginal in
> its utility that we are not permitted to distribute it, or can't be
> bothered to.)
Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be free.
Before everyone becomes huffy over my last statement, please let me
explain. Our definition of free (i.e., the DFSG) is arbitrary. It is
not some divine revelation, handed down from above and written in stone.
Mostly it is a compromise that was reached after serious debate of what
we wanted to include in our official distribution, and it contains
parts that were added solely to allow us to distribute specific useful
software in main. The document itself mentions that it is a compromise.
The arguments that I've seen on this list that free software is good,
non-free software is evil are silly. In many cases, the difference
between the two is relatively small when compared to what the proponents
of this type of argument would like to cite as examples. Unfortunately,
these skewed examples are usually employed to further argue that
non-free software developers -- by which they imply proprietary software
developers -- are unfairly using the resources of Debian to distribute
their software and thereby are getting a free ride. Rubbish!
If Debian is about our definition of free software and nothing else,
then John's resolution makes perfect sense. If Debian is about
volunteering to integrate and distribute software (even for the sake of
free software), then I can't agree that the resolution is in our best
interest.
- Brian
Reply to: