Re: rms on debian
Steve,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:40 pm, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:55:36 +1000
> Wait, so endorsing a sub-project but not the main project when, one can
> theorize, the sub-project could include non-free software in the same way
> the main project can... IE, the addition of a apt.sources line... is a
> good thing? I'm confused because other than the fact that the
> sub-project's web page doesn't work and was made for a government instead
> of in spite of one I see no difference in the terms of free or non-free
> software in that scenerio.
RMS said in the interview:
"Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian
does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and
their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their
site on www.gnu.org. GNU/LinEx is better because it does not distribute or
recommend those programs."
I was in a hurry with my post and it is not as clear as it should be on this
point. Debian is in my view taking the right approach by describing and
distributing non-free programs in the manner it does. However, as Richard
bases his choices solely on ethical considerations his response is both
logical and justified from his viewpoint.
> Should new drugs be patented? Yes. The problem with pharmaceuticals
> isn't the patent on new drugs, it is the patent on "new" drugs. Ever
> wonder why Paxil(?) recently came out with a "12-hour formula". It is
> because the new delivery system, IE 12-hour time release instead of 4 hour
> short release, means that it is a "new" variant and thus the patent on the
> "old" variant is extended. Pharmaceutical companies play this game with
> every drug they create. They create the base. They when the patent is
> about to expire they change the delivery system slightly. When that patent
> is about to expire they change t a little more. Etc, etc, forevermore and
> evermore. That's the problem, the stupid legal loophole that they've
> secured for themselves and defend with multi-million dollar lobbies.
This would seem to be just one example of the way in which present laws are
not working. I am not anti-intellectual property, but extremes such as this
and ridiculous software patents are symptoms of a larger problem. I don't
pretend to have the solution. We must ensure adequate incentive whilst also
seeking to maximise the benefit. Closing these types of loophole would be a
good thing, but this is unlikely to happen given the lobby groups you speak
of.
Reply to: