Re: Social Contract
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Chris Lale wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
Include my name in the list of "people for whom social contract is the
#1 point" also. When Debian ceases to be Free, then Debian ceases to
retain my loyalty.
Add me, too!
For me, an OS is a means to load applications. Debian was the
choice due to ease of install, ease of hardware detection,
and ease of making it work with some Windows machines.
The decision was based on running several LiveCD versions of
Linux, and picking Knoppix as the winner[1]. Since it is based
on Debian, Debian was the choice.
"Social contract" machts nichts here. In fact, for me, the
"social contract" aspect of all Linux distros is a drawback
to them. I don't want to "change the social order" or "be
the downfall of capitalism", or "kill MicroSoft" or any of
the other "social goals" so often associated with Linux. I
just want a cheap and reliable OS to load my apps. Unfortunately,
that means that getting support means wading through sometimes
annoying amounts of "social contract" trash to get to the good
stuff.
Mike, it appears you've never looked at Debian's 'social contract' [1].
Yes, I have. And I just went back and read it again to make sure
that (a) I properly understood it before, and (b) it hasn't changed
since I read it. I stand by what I said.
It has nothing to do with bashing anything else (be it M$ or other
distributions). The key points to me are (my wording):
Umm, you didn't read or you didn't understand what I wrote.
I lumped several things together, but I did not say they
were the same thing. The Debian social contract falls under
the first rubrik "change the social order", since it subscribes
to the FOSS, which goals I do not support.
I'll quote a short piece from the page you put below, which goals
I do not support...
[QUOTE MODE ON]
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
1. Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
[QUOTE MODE OFF]
Now, this does not mean that I think that people who want to do this
are bad. It's just not something I particularly support or want to
participate in. If you want to give your stuff away, that's fine.
But to require others to do so in order to contribute is not fine,
and I'll not contribute, participate, or support such an attempt.
One of the worst things for freedom of software, IMO, was the
development of the GPL. I do not like, and do not support the GPL,
LGPL, or similar types of license, which Debian *does* support,
promote, and even require contributors to use. The GPL, LGPL, and
similar kinds of license, which Debian supports, defends, promotes,
and requires are an attempt to change the social order.
[snip]
I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer,
because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any more
and all work that was done with that program was more or less lost.
Umm, you never did have that license, then, and you used the software
in an unauthorized manner. In short, you used a pirate copy.
[snip]
[1] http://www.de.debian.org/social_contract
I used this link to verify that I was using the version you had
in mind.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply to: