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.
--
Raul
Reply to: