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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:

> It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
>   - 100% freeness
>   - cater best to the interests of our users

        Frankly, this mindset infuriates me. It frames the discussion
 incorrectly, it implies that freeness and user interest are at
 odds. Logically, it aargues that Windows is the best for users, since
 it caters to newbies, and is not free-  and since the implication is
 that freedom can be taken too far, allowing the users freedom to see
 movies legally, to use MS office and photoshop legally might triump the
 new fangled linux thingy.

        No. Freedom is in the long term best interests of the users. We
 allow people to use non-free stuff, yes -- but we do so not by
 tainting main, but by putting these tools to help the unfortunate
 folks who cannot take advantage of a free operating system.

        The same goes for people who are complaining oabout advocates
 of the social contract and libre software, calling them folks who do
 not care for users. I contend that people who stuff main with non-free
 stuff _are_ the ones acting against the interests of the suers in the
 long term, since freedom is the gift that Debian started out trying to
 give users.

        Why is not putting non-free firmware in non-free not the right
 thing to do? Why is trying to create a 100% free distribution, as our SC
 states, supposed ot be the dark side? I hope the few loud voices acting
 against the interests of the users by trying to prevent Debian from
 providing them a free operating system are indeed few.

The beauty of a pun is in the "Oy!" of the beholder.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: