Re: Social Contract
Mike McCarty wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
[...]
[...] 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.
Nope, it was one of the best things to ever happen to free software. If
you don't like it because it attempts to change the social order, that's
your problem, but the GPL most definitely did not harm free software.
Before the GPL, people who wanted to release software freely would put
it into the public domain, where it would be free for only a brief
period before someone took it, changed it, and released it as
proprietary software.
The GPL makes sure that this can't happen.
Does anyone doubt that Redhat would be a proprietary operating system if
Redhat corporation had a choice?
I do not like, and do not support the GPL,
Then stop using GPLed software.
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.
And this, my friend, is the *best* thing about the GPL and OSS. I don't
want to be ruled by an information elite. I don't want Microsoft to
achieve total world domination by being the only company that knows how
to write software.
OSS is our best chance of remaining free from information domination.
That's why I support OSS, and that's why I give money to Software in the
Public Interest (SPI).
If I don't give the money now, I'll give a *lot* more to Microsoft if
they finalize their monopoly by destroying free software.
[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.
Re-read what Johannes said. His employer had a valid license for the
software. He left that job, and was no longer able to view the documents
created by that software. Nowhere did Johannes say that he continued to
use the program after he'd left his old employer.
[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
Mike, get out of here. Stop using OSS. Go back onto the proprietary
software plantation and work the fields there. Come back after ten years
in the fields and tell us how much you love it.
If you want people to be dominated by an information elite, you should
be the first person dominated.
Reply to: