Re: "keep non-free" proposal
> > [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> > remain completely free.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:37:20AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> First of all, I need to apologize for my earlier statement in a related
> thread that you should generically substitute the use of word "that" for
> "which". They are distinctly different beasts. Google turned up a few
> grammatical advice sites[1,2,3] for clarifying the usage. In any case,
> the statement [A] is VERY wrong. The use of "which" v.s. "that"
> revolves around the idea of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.
> Use "which" to introduce non-restrictive clauses[2,3]. In the case of
> statement [A], you are introducing essential information. It is a
> restrictive clause, therefore requiring the use of "that".
There's some kind of problem with other software remaining completely
free?
> [A] Software that Debian distributes is completely free and will remain
> completely free.
>
> Just because the software exists on the archive doesn't mean it IS
> Debian. What helps define Debian is the Free Software as described by
> the DFSG, thus why this type of statement is in the Social Contract.
I think the whole "is Debian" line of logic is bogus. Debian is people
who put together OS distributions. Also, "Debian is the collection of
.deb files distributed by Debian" is a fairly nonsensical statement.
> > New: "We promise to keep the free software of the Debian System
> > Distributions completely free."
>
> Ambiguous use of "free" to define the word "free".
No -- defining the word "free" in the context of the social contract is
the job of the DFSG. That's pretty basic.
> It is also a misdirection of purpose. It has changed from distributing
> free software to guaranteeing the "freeness" of free software, which
> in my honest opinion is a job for EFI not Debian.
It's got flaws, but not that flaw. It's a statement about us not
replacing free software we distribute with non-free software.
> As I have demonstrated, this proposal falls flat of anything called
> rational thought. Debian, by definition, is a distribution.
Debian, by definition, is a project. Debian is also an adjective used
to describe the output of that project (as well as its inner workings).
> > We will continue to support free software, and non-free software, just
> > as we always have.
>
> We know this is your agenda, although you claimed earlier in this post
> that your proposal would exclude it.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here -- can you provide a
reference?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: