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

Re: non-free and users?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 08:15:10PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>This is the difference in our points. I think that non-free software is 
> >>dangerous and mostly evil like a narcotic and should be immediately 
> >>dropped.

Raul Miller wrote:
> > I understand that.
> > 
> > What I don't understand is the basis for this belief of yours.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:56:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I'm not sure, if my English is good enough for expessing such 
> complicated things. How people judge what is good and what is evil? I 
> think my (and probably anyones) judgements are based on the expediency, 
> usefulness of the particular action for themselves and humanity. The 
> problem is (as usual) in how we define this things. Debian have software 
> guidelines with such definitions. Because of them it can group together 
> people with similar view.

You seem to have a fairly decent grasp of english.

But let's focus on those definitions...:

> > Is it just the presence of the phrase "non-free"?  Because, you don't
> > seem to care anything about the details.
> > 
> > You would have use treat freely redistributable GNU documentation under
> > GFDL exactly the same as we currently treat commercial software which
> > costs $250,000 for every CPU it runs on and another $25,000 for every
> > user permitted to use it.
> > 
> > I don't think that makes sense.

> First of all I will not treat GFDL as non-free. It is not a program and 
>   is a grey area for Debian and AFAIK GFDL is still in main.

GFDL does not comply with DFSG.  That is the criteria we use to put
things in non-free.

To put GFDL licensed software in main is a bug, unless we first change
DFSG to allow distribution of some copyrighted material which cannot be
distributed if changed.

> I do not think it is a good example.

I do.

> Debian have good guidelines for programs.  They are partially applicable
> for documentaion and for programs they work very good. Anyway it is
> a subject for another discussion.

We are discussing what we want to do with those guidelines.

> There is a line which separates free from non-free. There are degrees of 
> the freeness. Some programs are more free, some are less free. After a 
> certain degree program becomes non-free, or evil. Debian DFSG define 
> this line quite well for programs.

We're not talking about DFPG (Debian Free Program Guidelines).  We are
talking about DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines).  And I think we
should be talking about software, rather than programs, for much the
same reasons that we can use code as data and data as code.

And, none of the things we have in non-free are very non-free -- in all
cases there is a high degree of freeness -- just not enough to satisfy
all of DFSG.

Software which doesn't satisfy more than one of our free software
guidelines can never go into non-free -- we don't have permission from
the authors.


Reply to: