On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:37:57AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org> writes:
> > The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
> > the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
> > people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
> > persue a political goal of 100% free software.
> Right, it's a compromise. That's my point, and the problem is that
> the compromise is:
> "You can distribute non-free packages, as long as you don't call them
> part of Debian."
No, the compromise is Debian distributes non-free packages, but it
also has a section that's free, and anyone who doesn't like non-free is
welcome to ignore everything else.
Pretending that Debian's focussed on what things are called rather than
what things are certainly seems ignorant historically, and still seems
pretty dubious.
> The second half of that has been nearly erased, and Anthony and Sven
> have said here that it's pointless and pedantic to insist on it.
No, I'm claiming that it's actively counterproductive to goals of 100%
free software to drop non-free. I might be wrong, of course.
> Well, it was a compromise, and if they can't keep their half of the
> bargain, it's broken down.
Uh, dude, you're the one trying to ensure Debian doesn't distribute
non-free at all. You wanna talk about broken bargains, go ahead.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature