Re: free, freer, freest
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 11:43:10AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > A few thought from a non-developer with an interest in Debian's product;
> > ending with a question/suggestion directed to RMS.
> >
> > Is it Debian GNU/Linux or GNU Debian/Linux.
>
> Debian GNU/Linux, why do you ask? It's stated everywhere.
It is called a rhetorical question (notice, no question mark),
typically used to elicit thought on a subject.
There was only one question in my post, and I didn't really expect an
answer because, although the suggestion would result in what GNU seems
to want, I don't believe it would further what I see as their agenda.
However, since you seem to want to get into it...
> > The former indicates that Debian is an entity, with its own agenda and
> > methodology, based on the GNU tools and the Linux kernel. The later
> > indicates an entity, with the GNU agenda and methodology, based on Debian
> > tools and the Linux kernel.
>
> You are really thinking in the wrong terms here. Debian is strongly connected
> to GNU in many ways, but not part of the FSF. Debian consists of individual
> developers. We all dedicate our work to free software, but have different
> opinions on licenses etc. The one thing we agree about is the social contract
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
I know this, does GNU...
or would they give anything not GPLed the boot if they could.
> > What is the FSF, what does the FSF do that GNU can not, and why.
>
> FSF is the Free Software Foundation. FSF _IS_ GNU.
I know this also.
Hmmm, interesting (that you ignore what came next).
> > >From the pocket dictionary that was within arms reach:
> >
> > FREE - not subject to the will of others; unconfined; acquitted.
> >
> > GNU's idea of "free" appears quite different: subject to the will of GNU;
> > confined to GNU's notion of "free"; obligated to follow GNU philosophy.
> >
> > Ya, ok, I am focusing on "free", GNU is focused on "free software" - but
> > wouldn't the average reasonable person assume that the "free" in "free
> > software" carries the same meaning as the word "free" does when used in
> > other contexts. GNU may champion "free software", but it does not
> > champion "free", the 17,000+ byte General Public License makes that clear.
>
> Do you really need an antique definition from a pocket dictionary to
^^^^^^^
So, are you trying to say that there is a modern definition of "free",
that differs from the definition I gave?
As far as the "pocket dictionary" goes... it is easier to handle and
transport than the encyclopedic dictionary that sits on my main desk;
the definition of "free" boils down to the same thing in each, the
pocket dictionary is just a little more succinct.
> understand Free Software? Why are names so important for you? Instead of
> focusing how things are called, try to get a feeling for the goals and
> issues involved.
Hmmm, you do seem to have missed the point. Don't you think it a
little underhanded to take a common word with an established meaning and
then twist it to mean something else, especially when the twisting is
buried in the text of an ~17k file (the GPL).
Now, as far as your questions go... I would rather use a dictionary to
determine the meaning of a word than to make one up or assume that I
just know what the meaning is (I'm not omniscient). Language is
very important, it is how we communicate; the careless use of language
leads to misunderstandings, a deliberate misuse of language is at least
dishonest at most criminal. So, yes, "names" are important.
> The Gnu license exists to protect freedom.
The GPL restricts freedom.
I don't believe that the means justifies the end, and I do believe that
a victory brought about by the GPL would be tainted.
> Freedom is not something that comes naturally. It has to be achieved.
Actually, freedom is natural, we just have a hard time seeing it because
we have been bombarded with rules since we were born.
> A democracy needs to be fought for.
Your statement implies that struggle is intrinsic to democracy; that
perception is just an artifact of the fact that a struggle is intrinsic
to any change in an existing system for which there is opposition, it
just happens as a quirk of history that democracy has always supplanted
some other form of government.
Too bad none of this has anything to do with the current discussion,
"free software" is a new idea, not a change that would relegate an
existing system to the trash heap. i.e., free software and non-free
software can co-exist, which is not the case with democracy and an
absolute monarchy, dictatorship, etc.
> A lot of people are not interested in other people being free.
Which "people are not interested"?
> The GPL tries
> to ensure as much freedom for the Software as possible without loosing
> freedom to non-willing parties.
In the process it restricts freedom,
doesn't that seem a little hypocritical?
> [FUD deleted]
Ya wanna see FUD, take a *close* look at the GNU site and try to follow
the logic of some of the arguments in the philosophy section.
> > Mr. Stallman,
> >
> > Why doesn't GNU set up their own front-end to Debian,
> > one that only allows access to what GNU considers to be "free"?
>
> I am not Stallman, but I think I can guess why. It's all about avoiding
> doubled effort. Why should GNU waste energy on adjusting Debian when Debian
> can adjust itself to make itself suitabloe for the GNU project?
Because it is GNU that wants a subset of what Debian offers.
Why should Debian's users have to jump through hoops because GNU does
not like the whole Debian package as it sits today?
> The GNU project does not want to do everything for themselves. That's only
> last resort. If you can find someone to do it for you, that's much better.
> The GNU ressources are limited, also. Does make sense to me.
What makes sense to me is that GNU would like to make Debian more GNU
like (fanatical), then they can claim/infer that all Debian users are
really GNUites. Then there is the 'thin edge of the wedge' argument
seen recently on this list.
[I like to call it a healthy amount of paranoia. ;) ]
Hmmm, if GNU doesn't have the resources to tackle such a straight
forward project then they could not have attracted too many followers
(for lack of a better word). If that is the case, why would Debian want
to become more GNUish. No, that can't be it, after all, GNU has been
around a lot longer than Debian, eh - I would expect GNU to have more
resources than Debian does.
> > Users and developers would then be able to make a choice between a
> > free Debian style Linux/HURD/whatever distribution, and the GNU window
> > into the same distribution.
>
> I think Debian alone can offer both choices, really.
So do I, but that does not appear to be what GNU wants (keep in mind
that my only exposure to this argument is what has passed through
debian-vote. I may have picked up the wrong impression,
but I doubt it).
> > This suggestion could result in Debian becoming the freest software
> > distribution around, rather than a second-rate distribution because it
> > is missing currently important pieces like Netscape and ssh.
>
> Neither netscape nor ssh are part of the Debian distribution. I am
> completely unimpressed by your lack of understanding of the situation.
Contrib and non-free are not officially part of Debian, they are
offered as a service to Debian's users and as such are distributed by
Debian using the same system and QA mechanisms used for main packages.
Clearly contrib and non-free are a part of Debian.
> Debian will stay the same. The proposed changes do not affect the content of
> the Debian distribution. They will not affect the number nor quality of
> non-free packages available from Debian hosted servers managed by Debian
> developers.
That seems to be a point of contention. If it is the case that "Debian
will stay the same.", why make changes and why all the arguing on a
list that usually does not see much discussion?
> If you think we are a second rate distribution because we don't include
> non-dfsg free software in it, I am afraid that Debian is not the right
> distribution for you.
I don't use Netscape or ssh (they just happen to be two popular pieces
of software that would virtually disappear, from a users POV), I also
don't think that Debian is second-rate... but what will the uninitiated
think when they can not find software that they expect to be readily
available... will they ask about it, or will they move on to a
distribution that has their favorite web browser available when they
finish the installation. Yes, that is FUD, but it is also a valid
concern. If the proposed changes happen, and they turn out to be
detrimental to Debian's health, it will be very difficult to reverse the
damage. If, on the other hand, it was announced that users could
install some software that would ensure their Debian system consisted
only of "free software" (and whatever other changes have been proposed),
without fiddling with the way Debian is now, then a measure could be
made of just how well accepted the change would be to the users.
It seems like the safest and most prudent course of action.
Just to set the record straight...
I had adopted a GNU-like philosophy (way back in the late 70's and early
80's) before I had even heard of GNU . I agree with GNU in principal,
but abhor the tactics GNU uses. I believe it is best to present your
case and then let people make up their own mind, rather than try and
force the issue with a carrot (free software) and stick (GPL) approach.
- Bruce
Reply to: