[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> Can a Debian user make a comment here?
> I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and 
> administrator.  Having read most of this thread and some similar past 
> threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss:
> Debian is not 100% free software.  Debian is non-free software.
> Debian is not 100% free software.  Debian is non-free software.
> Debian is not 100% free software.  Debian is non-free software.
> I repeated that statement because you developers floating around up here 
> in legalistic-definition land are missing the point.  Out here in the 
> real world, if Debian servers are distributing non-free software, and 
> more importantly, if Debian installer software by default conspiciously 
> offers to install that non-free software onto Debian user's systems, 
> then Debian as a whole is non-free in the eyes of 99.999% of it's 
> users.  RMS is not being pedantic on this point, he's being extremely 
> realistic.  You folks can sit up here all day long and define different 
> theoretical definitions about how "this free part of Debian is really 
> Debian" and "this non-free part of Debian is not really Debian" but to 
> us real human beings it's all Debian, see?

But is that because of what's contained in "non-free" or is that because
of the name "non-free"?

Note that, at the moment, some of the content which RMS is responsible
for distributing we redistribute from "non-free".

Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free,
and eliminate some of the more objectionable material.  For example,
perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed
to all users.

And, if it would make people think a bit more before posting, maybe we
should name it something other than "non-free" [though doing that right
still probably means changing the social contract].

Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.


Reply to: