What about classifying businesses according to the Debian guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
Businesses that deal with 100% free software (from development to production) will fit in the main section, the others in either contrib or non free.
By the way, I remember somebody here telling me some time ago that the GBN was thrown a spanner from the outside. I can only see spanners from inside.
Ottavio Caruso --
No individual replies, please!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
What about classifying businesses according to the Debian guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)? Businesses that deal with 100% free software (from development to production) will fit in the main section, the others in either contrib or non free.
Increasingly it appears to be a good idea to consider layers of membership.
By the way, I remember somebody here telling me some time ago that the GBN was thrown a spanner from the outside. I can only see spanners from inside.
I'm not sure there are many spanners flying. It seems everyone (a) wants the GBN to be a robust supporter of Free Software Businesses and (b) is contributing ideas. While some material generated might revisit old ground, surely useful material is also being contributed for the consideration of FSFE Team etc.
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@opendawn.com m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire) w: www.opendawn.com - --- OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
What about classifying businesses according to the Debian guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
This would undermine the goal of a Free Software Business and the GNU Business Network. This is also why e.g. Debian is not listed as a recommended GNU/Linux system by the FSF and the GNU project simply because Debian includes non-free software.
You will only end up promoting non-free software by allowing business who promote and/or support non-free softawre to be listed as a Free Software Business or as a business that is part of the GNU Business Network.
The FSF has a list of Free Software business already, known as the Service Directory (www.fsf.org/resources/services/).
Here are the requirements that need to be fullfilled for a company/person to be listed in the Service Directory:
| This is a list of people who have asked to be listed as offering | support services for GNU and other free software for a fee or in | some cases at no charge. To have your information added to this | list, please send an e-mail to service@fsf.org. | | The information comes from the people who asked to be listed; we do | not include any information we know to be false, but we cannot check | out any of the information; we are transmitting it to you as it was | given to us and do not promise it is correct. | | Also, this is not an endorsement of the people listed here. | | We have no opinions and usually no information about the abilities | of any specific person. We provide this list to enable you to | contact service providers and decide for yourself whether to hire | one. | | Before FSF will list your name in the Free Software Service | Directory, we ask that you agree informally to the following terms: | | 1. You will not restrict (except by copyleft) the use or | distribution of any software, documentation, or other technical | information you supply anyone in the course of modifying, | extending, or supporting free software. This includes any | information specifically designed to ameliorate the use of free | software. | | 2. You will not take advantage of contact made through the Service | Directory to advertise an unrelated business (e.g., sales of | proprietary information). You may spontaneously mention your | availability for general consulting, but you should not promote a | specific unrelated business unless the client asks. Please | include some indication of your rates, because otherwise users | have nothing to go by. Please put each e-mail address inside | "<>". Please put nothing else inside "<>". Thanks!
Cheers.
--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
This would undermine the goal of a Free Software Business and the GNU Business Network.
I might be on the Debian side when it comes to GNU vs Debian, but this in incidental.
What is important is that we may have a policy:
| 1. You will not restrict (except by copyleft) the [..cut..] | 2. You will not take advantage of contact made [..cut..]
So, do we have the mechanism? If so, what are we waiting for?
Ottavio Caruso --
No individual replies, please!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
What about classifying businesses according to the Debian guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
This would undermine the goal of a Free Software Business and the GNU Business Network. This is also why e.g. Debian is not listed as a recommended GNU/Linux system by the FSF and the GNU project simply because Debian includes non-free software.
And by debian merely not being listed, this subtle fact is hidden from most. Let it have a weaker public listing to make its standing more clear; Let people know it has only 2nd level membership because it includes non-free software.
You will only
I dispute the literal and intended meanings of "only" here, we could replace the word with "possibly also"
end up promoting non-free software by allowing business who promote and/or support non-free softawre to be listed as a Free Software Business or as a business that is part of the GNU Business Network.
Maybe, but we will be promoting them because of (and in proportion to) the positive and free activities they undertake and not the non-free activities.
The type of onlooker that is incapable of being made aware of this is not the kind who will commonly be swayed by stricter definitions or sparser membership lists.
If we can cause their balance sheet to show increased demand for their free-er activities then their business plans will begin to reflect this.
Sam
What about classifying businesses according to the Debian guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
This would undermine the goal of a Free Software Business and the GNU Business Network. This is also why e.g. Debian is not listed as a recommended GNU/Linux system by the FSF and the GNU project simply because Debian includes non-free software.
And by debian merely not being listed, this subtle fact is hidden from most. Let it have a weaker public listing to make its standing more clear; Let people know it has only 2nd level membership because it includes non-free software.
How about letting people know that it has no membership at all?
If you say `ok, here are businesses we allow in our network', then you are saying in turn `we recommend these businesses and their practises'. If a practise is such that it is OK to support/develop non-free software, then this undermines the whole goal of free software. It doesn't matter if you have a little note saying that they are in category FOO or BAR.
Maybe, but we will be promoting them because of (and in proportion to) the positive and free activities they undertake and not the non-free activities.
But they do non-free activities, thus you are promoting those activities too.
Cheers.
Ottavio Caruso pr0f3ss0r1492@yahoo.com
What about classifying businesses according to the Debian guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
The guidelines themselves may be a bit harsh for business, but that's not quite what you meant:
Businesses that deal with 100% free software (from development to production) will fit in the main section, the others in either contrib or non free.
Yes, I think that sort of split could be a good idea (unsurprisingly). It's already pretty well understood by many GNU users and it wouldn't hurt to introduce the others to it.
It might even make certain members of this list understand how non-free is not part of debian's OS and how it can be used to help get more free software, but I don't hold out hope of it. Labelling something as a non-free offering clearly lets everyone know that it is not wholly free software as far as we're concerned, even if the business waffles about open standards, open access or even open/shared source.
But will the FSF's ambivalence towards debian allow us to use these handy and familiar labels?
It might even make certain members of this list understand how non-free is not part of debian's OS
Non-free is clearly part of Debian. Debian/SPI/ftpmasters are legally responsible for whatever is put into non-free.
and how it can be used to help get more free software,
One does not get more people using free software by saying: Here, have some non-free software as well.
But will the FSF's ambivalence towards debian allow us to use these handy and familiar labels?
The FSF has never had mixed feelings towards Debian, the stance has always been quite clear: 100% free software. Something that Debian once along time achived, but not anymore.
The labels might be handy since they allow a practical means of getting more businesses listed. But this shouldn't be the goal of the GBN. The goal should be to promote 100% free software, anything else undermines the goal for our freedom.
If you have a business that supports non-free software then users will go to that business to get that support. It would be better if the business only supported a _way_to_move_ from non-free software to free software for users, and clearly saying that it does not condone of non-free software.
Cheers.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
It might even make certain members of this list understand how non-free is not part of debian's OS
Non-free is clearly part of Debian.
Not part of the debian operating system.
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
Debian/SPI/ftpmasters are legally responsible for whatever is put into non-free.
Debian - no. SPI - sometimes. ftpmasters - sometimes. Those interested in this aspect can see the head-scratching in the debian-legal threads last month about the Sun Java fast-tracking. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/
and how it can be used to help get more free software,
One does not get more people using free software by saying: Here, have some non-free software as well.
Indeed. I think that's part of why it's not on the distribution CDs. However, you don't let people know that something is non-free software by never mentioning its non-free-ness and you never free software by ignoring it. Similarly, you won't let people know which companies offer non-free software by ignoring them, or persuade those companies to improve.
But will the FSF's ambivalence towards debian allow us to use these handy and familiar labels?
The FSF has never had mixed feelings towards Debian, the stance has always been quite clear: 100% free software. Something that Debian once along time achived, but not anymore. [...]
Debian still achieves it as much as it ever has, aiming for 100%. The non-free archive existed when FSF sponsored debian development: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1995/debian-devel-199509/msg00520.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1996/msg00008.html Instead, in later years, we've seen FSFers recommend other distributions which had mixed non-free software into their CDs. Debian takes some crap for being clear and honest in its labelling. Maybe debian flames from misguided FSF supporters are another example that GBN might learn from?
Thank you for illustrating my pessimism,
From: MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:27:03 +0100
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org > It might even make certain members of this list understand how > non-free is not part of debian's OS > > Non-free is clearly part of Debian.
Not part of the debian operating system.
Of course, you can always redefine what "Debian" is in order to keep the statement "Debian is a free operating system" true. But we are not interested so much in what Debian *is*, but what software (free or proprietary) you distribute to users.
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
On 26-Jun-2006, Kaloian Doganov wrote:
[the non-free section is] Not part of the debian operating system.
Of course, you can always redefine what "Debian" is in order to keep the statement "Debian is a free operating system" true.
The definition and goal of Debian has always been to make an entirely free operating system, ever since the original documents creating the project. What are you implying has changed, or will change?
But we are not interested so much in what Debian *is*, but what software (free or proprietary) you distribute to users.
This continues to be an irritating confusion, but one that many of us are working to change.
Ben Finney wrote:
The definition and goal of Debian has always been to make an entirely free operating system, ever since the original documents creating the project.
I must admit that this is the only thing that made me a Debian user. Later on I've discovered the technical advantages (and not only, my machines are almost unusable with any other GNU system).
What are you implying has changed, or will change?
I don't know, but how can you explain that the present DPL Anthony Towns suggested the amendment for reaffirming the non-free section [1], while at the same time proposing the original "Why the GFDL is not suitable for Debian main" [2]? How can you explain that the Debian Project Secretary Manoj Srivastava thinks that the project is providing a free (as in beer) [3] service and is providing as an "add-on" (I'd call that freedom-substract-on) the non-free archive?
It seems that there is a hostility towards FSF and the understandable desire to prove that "We know much better about freedom than you" issue. The problem is, while Debian is trying to "prove" its maturity, it is extremely disappointing to long-time users, supporters and freedom-carers. To me, and I'm not alone in this, it is becoming so crucial that I'm having doubts whether I still have to continue to use Debian (I've stopped recommending it long ago). I cannot rely on Debian's judgement on what's free and what's not.
On a more general note, if you follow the Debian NM list, you'll notice that 95% of the new maintainers talk in their introduction about how they're attracted by the technical superiority of "open source software", etc, etc. While those people, in almost all cases, are valuable contributors from purely technical point of view, I doubt that they can lead the project to the same philosophical and moral foundatations it once had.
But we are not interested so much in what Debian *is*, but what software (free or proprietary) you distribute to users.
This continues to be an irritating confusion, but one that many of us are working to change.
This is much more than an irritating confusion and I highly doubt that it's going to be solved any time soon. Don't get me wrong, but the majority of people in Debian that are concerned about the "freedom" issues (I intentionally put it in quotes), are concerned to continue distributing non-free software. (Hint for Mark, a.k.a. MJ Ray, who will most probably disagree: just follow the infamous Sun Java thread at -devel and the GFDL threads at -vote and -legal).
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002#amendmentproposer [2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#proposer [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2006/03/msg00061.html
On 26-Jun-2006, Yavor Doganov wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
The definition and goal of Debian has always been to make an entirely free operating system, ever since the original documents creating the project.
I must admit that this is the only thing that made me a Debian user.
It seems we agree on the definition of Debian then. Thanks, that's what I wanted to clarify.
What are you implying has changed, or will change?
I don't know, but how can you explain [behaviour of the project members]
While you make many points I've made or agreed with in the past, I don't think the discussion is appropriate for this list.
Bringing it back on topic, the definition of Debian and the surrounding project (regardless what the project members do from time to time) was raised to discuss how those definitions might be useful for defining the GNU Business Network.
What do you think of the suggestion made to draw lines similar to those drawn by the Debian project: "free", "free but currently depends on non-free", "non-free".
Bringing it back on topic, the definition of Debian and the surrounding project (regardless what the project members do from time to time) was raised to discuss how those definitions might be useful for defining the GNU Business Network.
What do you think of the suggestion made to draw lines similar to those drawn by the Debian project: "free", "free but currently depends on non-free", "non-free".
A bad idea, since just like Debian, you end up recommending and condoning non-free software by recommending businesses that perform unethical practises. This goes against the very core of what GNU is about: non-free software is evil.
[Please don't send me copies of messages to the list.]
On 27-Jun-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
What do you think of the suggestion made to draw lines similar to those drawn by the Debian project: "free", "free but currently depends on non-free", "non-free".
A bad idea, since just like Debian, you end up recommending and condoning non-free software by recommending businesses that perform unethical practises.
I don't see how you make this connection. Why would a classification as I suggested necessarily "end up" as a recommendation?
This goes against the very core of what GNU is about: non-free software is evil.
I sympathise with this. The GBN, whatever its form, must always avoid promoting the restriction of software users.
[Please don't send me copies of messages to the list.]
Sorry, but I can't keep track of who is or isn't subscribed to this list. It is normal practise to always CC everyone.
What do you think of the suggestion made to draw lines similar to those drawn by the Debian project: "free", "free but currently depends on non-free", "non-free".
A bad idea, since just like Debian, you end up recommending and condoning non-free software by recommending businesses that perform unethical practises.
I don't see how you make this connection. Why would a classification as I suggested necessarily "end up" as a recommendation?
Since these companies will be listed as GBN friendly companies (with a little sign saying something about their "status"), you tell users that these companies are OK. When infact, they are not, since they recommend/develop non-free software. What is the point to classify businesses that do something that is not acceptable?
Cheers (and bed time for me)
On 27-Jun-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Since these companies will be listed as GBN friendly companies
I enumerated three categories: "free", "free but depends on non-free", "non-free". Which of those categories are you saying "will be listed as GBN friendly companies"?
What is the point to classify businesses that do something that is not acceptable?
One possibility: To highlight those businesses that already have laudable practices ("free"), to show businesses that we feel are progressing in the right direction ("free but currently depends on non-free"), and contrast them against those who currently have no actual progress in that direction ("non-free").
Since these companies will be listed as GBN friendly companies
I enumerated three categories: "free", "free but depends on non-free", "non-free". Which of those categories are you saying "will be listed as GBN friendly companies"?
All of them I'd say. Unless I misunderstand what the categories are about. If you have categories, you wish to label a set according to those categories. So in this case, the GBN would include a list of companies that `depend on non-free software', and `do non-free software'. And in turn, it would list companies that `depend on non-free software', and `do non-free software'.
Basically, since they are listed by the GBN, then they are GBN friendly. That they have a tag beside them doesn't change the fact in my opinion.
Or did I misunderstand you completely with what you intended these categories to be used for?
On 27-Jun-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[Please don't send me copies of messages to the list.]
Sorry, but I can't keep track of who is or isn't subscribed to this list. It is normal practise to always CC everyone.
On a mailing list, which uses software for the explicit purpose of sending a copy to everyone, Cc to the participants is certainly *not* normal practise.
It's normal practise to let the mailing list software do that job, and assume people are subscribed to the list for discussions in which they participate.
At Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:54:09 +0200 (CEST), Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[Please don't send me copies of messages to the list.]
Sorry, but I can't keep track of who is or isn't subscribed to this list. It is normal practise to always CC everyone.
You don't have to. Just adhere to the Mail-Followup-To header.
Jeroen Dekkers
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[Please don't send me copies of messages to the list.]
Sorry, but I can't keep track of who is or isn't subscribed to this list. It is normal practise to always CC everyone.
What do you think of the suggestion made to draw lines similar to those drawn by the Debian project: "free", "free but currently depends on non-free", "non-free".
A bad idea, since just like Debian, you end up recommending and condoning non-free software by recommending businesses that perform unethical practises.
I don't see how you make this connection. Why would a classification as I suggested necessarily "end up" as a recommendation?
Since these companies will be listed as GBN friendly companies (with a little sign saying something about their "status"), you tell users that these companies are OK. When
I dispute this claim. The "status" is the TYPE of "ok", not every user has the same standard of ok-ness; (the significance of this will be made clear)
You certainly will be indicating some businesses whose types of ok-ness which will not be FSF pure (yet) and this ok-ness will be acceptable to some customers, certainly; but I insist that you are actually saying to the customer "this is WHY this business is NOT (yet) ok"
You are providing MORE information to the users instead of saying "trust your holy masters"
infact, they are not, since they recommend/develop non-free software. What is the point to classify businesses that do something that is not acceptable?
So that 1) people can see WHAT it is they do that is not acceptable 2) what sort of behaviours are ideal.
To not even make a statement on these other businesses is to entirely miss out on these opportunities to educate the world.
No-one who is not already an FSF member will accept that there is a clear boundary between OK and not-OK, and certainly people will not accept that the boundary is where the FSF say it is; this is another reason why we must present a scale that contains most peoples boundaries so that they have the information they need in order to choose as much of the FSF good as they are currently able to recognize, and also become acquainted with greater FSF goodness which they can choose later.
I have to bring in some religions analogies here for which I don't apologise; the same problems existing with encouraging the adoption of religious principles. (If I am wrong on some detail, please don't trouble to raise it unless it affects the point I am trying to make)
Moses descended from the mount with the 10 commandments and found the people worshipping the calf; he then later came down with a different set of commandments; he gave them what goodness they were willing to receive. (Originally Moses and a large group of elders were supposed to ascend the mount with him, but they were too scared and missed out on that too).
I'm suggesting that FSF goodness in its pure form cannot be appreciated by most people. I suggest this as a plain fact; I suggest we help people to choose the FSF goodness that they CAN appreciate and understand; the religious principle here being "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", or in other words don't damn people for not having finished their education already.
The final religious comparison, Jesus said "I came not into the world to condemn the world but to save the world"; FSF may wish not to taint itself by association; however Jesus's only taint (if any) was by association, he didn't mind the association with "wicked sinners" in order to lift people; "condemn the sin but not the sinner" etc; a principle that must be carefully understood, if to be followed without disaster. The GBN reluctance on this point is virtuous, but total refusal may mean failure;
Now I observe from MJ Ray's recent post, and fully agree, that the behaviour of the FSF is responsible for reducing FSF support among Debian supporters; it places a burden that people are not educated to bear.
It seems we have two choices; selection or inclusion. The GBN strategy can select the already holy, or it can select the unholy who are (and as much as they are) willing to be "made pure" which takes time.
If GBN chooses "selection" then they will have my general and inactive support because the real work that needs doing will be outside the scope of the GBN.
If GBN chooses "purification" then they have my specific and active support, for the same reason; or as the religionists might say "we're not in heaven yet";
There is no freedom if free principles are understood only by one person; sure if he is RMS he can write emacs and gcc but most people would be made free-er with MS windows than with nothing. To get the best value of freedom, everyone must have it.
I think all relevant points have been discussed, I like the 3 debian categorisations.
I think it is clear that the "blurring" of the boundary is double edged; the same tool that allows people to keep non-free MS Office on Linux allows people to move from Windows to Linux.
I support inclusiveness, education, progression, and the 3 debian categorisations of business services and products.
Sam
You're a prolific writer! :-)
Since these companies will be listed as GBN friendly companies (with a little sign saying something about their "status"), you tell users that these companies are OK. When
I dispute this claim. The "status" is the TYPE of "ok", not every user has the same standard of ok-ness; (the significance of this will be made clear)
Right, but in this case it is the GBN that says what is listed or not. And not the user.
You are providing MORE information to the users instead of saying "trust your holy masters"
Sometimes providing more information will cause the user to use non-free software. This is why one of the policies for GNU projects is not to mention non-free software at all in manuals, unless they are well known.
infact, they are not, since they recommend/develop non-free software. What is the point to classify businesses that do something that is not acceptable?
So that 1) people can see WHAT it is they do that is not acceptable 2) what sort of behaviours are ideal.
One can do both by simply speaking of it in general terms. I do not see a need to make a `black list' of evil companies. The GBN could simply state that companies that do this and that are not ideal without the need to list each specific company that does something less than ideal.
I'm suggesting that FSF goodness in its pure form cannot be appreciated by most people. I suggest this as a plain fact; I suggest we help people to choose the FSF goodness that they CAN appreciate and understand; the religious principle here being "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", or in other words don't damn people for not having finished their education already.
I agree with you, but we disagree on the means how we should spread the word. I think the difference boils down to:
- Show a list of evils. - Speak of the evils.
You wish to do the first, I wish to do the later. I think the first is far to prone to misabuse and misrepresentation that it can be used as something to further the evils that one wishes to abolish.
Cheers.
Ben Finney wrote:
What do you think of the suggestion made to draw lines similar to those drawn by the Debian project: "free", "free but currently depends on non-free", "non-free".
I think it is a bad idea. We fight non-free software, we consider it unjust and wrong, we don't want it to exist. I am confident that it will be declared illegal at some point in the future, in the same manner as slavery is illegal. As it was already pointed out, recommending companies that are involved in proprietary software development and distribution totally defeats our ideals and principles.
Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org
I don't know, but how can you explain that the present DPL Anthony Towns suggested the amendment for reaffirming the non-free section [1], while at the same time proposing the original "Why the GFDL is not suitable for Debian main" [2]?
Maybe Anthony Towns wants it on the mirrors but not in the operating system. I don't know. If anyone wants someone to argue that Anthony Towns is a poor DPL, I'm there already, but - as noted from the NM discussions - "strong" free software supporters are a shrinking fraction of debian developers and that gets reflected in the choice of DPL and other key decisions. I think this constant stream of negativity from some FSF supporters is a large reason for that: don't recommend it any more, criticise its 100% free software aim, say it can't be trusted, and so on. That's a great way to discourage free software supporters from debian development and a fantastic recruiting sergeant for the failed "Open Source" initiative. Then you can criticise debian for being too many "Open Source" people and too few FSFphiles. Self-fulfilling prophecy, yay(!)
debian is the major distribution the most strongly committed to free software, but doesn't get any credit for it in this audience. As long as that continues, I suspect debian will drift towards technical superiority views more than freedom. If you want to change that, get more freedom supporters to engage with debian. It's the best show in town for now.
(Sort of amusing that it seems to be some of the same people arguing /against/ negative labelling of businesses that do the negative labelling of debian...)
How can you explain that the Debian Project Secretary Manoj Srivastava thinks that the project is providing a free (as in beer) [3] service and is providing as an "add-on" (I'd call that freedom-substract-on) the non-free archive? [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2006/03/msg00061.html
Neither "as in beer" nor "add-on" are in that email. I am surprised that anyone can read Manoj Srivastava's thoughts.
It seems that there is a hostility towards FSF and the understandable desire to prove that "We know much better about freedom than you" issue. [...]
Personally, I'm not hostile towards FSF but I am frustrated by it sometimes. The FDL debacle, the opaque GPLv3 consultation and other things like that.
Some of its misguided heavy-booted supporters, on the other hand...
majority of people in Debian that are concerned about the "freedom" issues (I intentionally put it in quotes), are concerned to continue distributing non-free software.
For that decision, we start with the set of all debian developers. Then, take the subset F of those who will actively support FSF, as this is labelled as an FSF-support topic every time it appears. Then, take the subset N of those who don't think non-free should be on the debian mirrors. That's who will vote for removal. A subset of a subset. It is impossible to make subset N larger and win the vote by attacking subset F and making it get smaller and smaller. Congratulations: you are defeating yourself.
(Hint for Mark, a.k.a. MJ Ray, who will most probably disagree: just follow the infamous Sun Java thread at -devel and the GFDL threads at -vote and -legal).
I don't disagree, but I think your tactic is a losing one, as described above. Sorry your prediction was wrong.
MJ Ray is my name, not an aka, and it's a bit rude to send personal asides to mailing lists (it's called "grandstanding"). Also, if you had read those threads, you would have noticed my participation in them and not told me to follow them. Finally, I've mentioned the contents of one of them already in this discussion, so you've clearly not even been reading this thread properly!
[...] criticise its [Debian's] 100% free software aim [...]
Debian might have this as an `aim', but aiming is no good if you cannot fire your riffle at the bullseye. Something that Debian has failed to do on a continued basis for several years.
That's a great way to discourage free software supporters from debian development and a fantastic recruiting sergeant for the failed "Open Source" initiative. Then you can criticise debian for being too many "Open Source" people and too few FSFphiles. Self-fulfilling prophecy, yay(!)
Or it might be Debian people like yourself who alienate people from Debian by calling people for `fanatic sargents', FSFphiles, and what not.
debian is the major distribution the most strongly committed to free software, but doesn't get any credit for it in this audience.
It doesn't get any credit because it is simply not true. There are several other GNU/Linux distributions that do a far better job, Fedora Core comes to mind. Then there are distributions who have entierly commited themselfs to 100% free software, like Ututo, Dynebolic, and a one or two more. So no, Debian is not the `major distribution most strongly committed to free software'.
Cheers.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
[...] criticise its [Debian's] 100% free software aim [...]
Debian might have this as an `aim', but aiming is no good if you cannot fire your riffle at the bullseye. Something that Debian has failed to do on a continued basis for several years.
"Everyone can make errors" -- Alfred M. Szmidt, yesterday, in Message-Id: 20060626112830.5D7CB44003@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE
That's a great way to discourage free software supporters from debian development and a fantastic recruiting sergeant for the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
failed "Open Source" initiative. Then you can criticise debian for being too many "Open Source" people and too few FSFphiles. Self-fulfilling prophecy, yay(!)
Or it might be Debian people like yourself who alienate people from Debian by calling people for `fanatic sargents', FSFphiles, and what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not.
It might be, but I doubt it. I think a few FSF supporters flaming debian advocates is far more damaging.
Please note the highlighted rewrite :-/
FSFphile seemed a convenient inoffensive shorthand for me.
debian is the major distribution the most strongly committed to free software, but doesn't get any credit for it in this audience.
It doesn't get any credit because it is simply not true. There are several other GNU/Linux distributions that do a far better job, Fedora Core comes to mind. Then there are distributions who have entierly commited themselfs to 100% free software, like Ututo, Dynebolic, and a one or two more. So no, Debian is not the `major distribution most strongly committed to free software'.
I believe it's true and here's why:
"Fedora Core is the heart of the Fedora distribution. This project maintains the packages that make up Fedora systems." -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects
So, roughly equivalent to Debian's main archive. There are other "Fedora foo" archives containing other things. There is little to choose between Fedora Core and Debian's main IMO, except Fedora Core includes non-free-software FDL-covered works and a few other questionables, but takes a more conservative line on software with alleged patents or export restrictions.
http://www.utoto.org/ (linked from gnu.org) is refusing connections, so I have not checked it.
'dyne:bolic is RASTA software released free under the GNU General Public License.' -- http://dynebolic.org/ I'm rather sceptical that everything on there is GPL, especially 'live.com liveMedia' (live.com is apparently a Microsoft domain) and some firmware packages but I've not checked. The site helpfully tells you that you can run it under "Micro$oft Winblows" :-/
I don't think utoto or dyne:bolic are major distributions yet and I didn't find a commitment by any of them as strong as debian's. No talk of the future and no commitment to Hurd. Debian has both.
Hope that explains,
Debian might have this as an `aim', but aiming is no good if you cannot fire your riffle at the bullseye. Something that Debian has failed to do on a continued basis for several years.
"Everyone can make errors" -- Alfred M. Szmidt, yesterday, in Message-Id: 20060626112830.5D7CB44003@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE
Debian has made the for 10 years or more now, and still not fixed them. They are not errors anymore, but simply lack of caring for user freedoms.
FSFphile seemed a convenient inoffensive shorthand for me.
Then you won't mind me tell you to stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed.
So, roughly equivalent to Debian's main archive. There are other "Fedora foo" archives containing other things.
Can you point me to these `other archives'?
There is little to choose between Fedora Core and Debian's main IMO, except Fedora Core includes non-free-software FDL-covered works
FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.
I don't think utoto or dyne:bolic are major distributions yet and I didn't find a commitment by any of them as strong as debian's. No talk of the future and no commitment to Hurd. Debian has both.
Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software. Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
Debian has made the for 10 years or more now, and still not fixed them. They are not errors anymore, but simply lack of caring for user freedoms.
The debian project has been fixing the errors in debian, but I'm sure it will continue to make errors. It's not a lack of care for user freedoms. We could make a young debian-based distribution and maybe FSF would recommend it - just as it has some debian-based distributions made by some debian developers.
FSFphile seemed a convenient inoffensive shorthand for me.
Then you won't mind me tell you to stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed.
I do mind it. I've asked you to stop telling me to harm myself. I never called you an FSFphile and I don't think the term offensive, but I respect your wishes and will try not to call you it.
So, roughly equivalent to Debian's main archive. There are other "Fedora foo" archives containing other things.
Can you point me to these `other archives'?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports/ lists some. http://www.fedorafaq.org/ (linked from www.fedoraproject.org) gives instructions on access to others.
FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.
We disagree on the reasons, but agree on the conclusion.
I don't think utoto or dyne:bolic are major distributions yet and I didn't find a commitment by any of them as strong as debian's. No talk of the future and no commitment to Hurd. Debian has both.
Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software.
Debian packages 'must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package'. (debian-policy s2.2.1)
Of course debian supports non-free software. GNU supports non-free software, although I expect the GNU project tells you not to use it. Can a product condone something?
Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Get yourself a CD of the official release and try to find any.
Debian has made the for 10 years or more now, and still not fixed them. They are not errors anymore, but simply lack of caring for user freedoms.
The debian project has been fixing the errors in debian, but I'm sure it will continue to make errors. It's not a lack of care for user freedoms. We could make a young debian-based distribution and maybe FSF would recommend it - just as it has some debian-based distributions made by some debian developers.
If Debian has been fixing these errors, please explain why it is hosting non-free software, and still adding more non-free software there. Most notably, Sun Java.
This is obviously not an error, since it is perfectly a valid practise within Debian and is condoned by the Debian project.
So, roughly equivalent to Debian's main archive. There are other "Fedora foo" archives containing other things.
Can you point me to these `other archives'?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports/ lists some.
Oh please, you quote a wiki. Then I guess that if someone makes a link to ftp.microsoft.com when posting to a GNU list then GNU is hosting non-free software. Stop this absurdities.
Atleast have the decency to quote offical material.
Of course debian supports non-free software.
And recommend its usage. We agree. Great.
GNU supports non-free software, although I expect the GNU project tells you not to use it. Can a product condone something?
You make silly claims without fact again and again, it is boring. Shove proof. Where does GNU support non-free software?
Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Get yourself a CD of the official release and try to find any.
What the CD's contain isn't relevant. It is the action of Debian that matters. I'd go on an equal rampage if the FSF started doing the same.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
If Debian has been fixing these errors, please explain why it is hosting non-free software,
'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
and still adding more non-free software there. Most notably, Sun Java.
I don't understand why some debian delegates added Sun Java, especially under those nasty terms.
This is obviously not an error, since it is perfectly a valid practise within Debian and is condoned by the Debian project.
The addition of Sun Java to Debian has not been condoned. Another wild accusation without evidence.
So, roughly equivalent to Debian's main archive. There are other "Fedora foo" archives containing other things.
Can you point me to these `other archives'?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports/ lists some.
Oh please, you quote a wiki. Then I guess that if someone makes a link to ftp.microsoft.com when posting to a GNU list then GNU is hosting non-free software. Stop this absurdities.
I expect GNU does host non-free software somewhere, but I don't know whether ftp.microsoft.com runs GNU, so I don't see the relevance of that.
Atleast have the decency to quote offical material.
The wiki seems to be official material. I'm not exactly happy with that, so I quoted another, which was deleted unmarked. It's much more substantial than anything quoted to support the allegations against debian.
Of course debian supports non-free software.
And recommend its usage. We agree. Great.
No, debian does not recommend or depend on non-free software. (debian-policy s2.2.1, yet again)
GNU supports non-free software, although I expect the GNU project tells you not to use it. Can a product condone something?
You make silly claims without fact again and again, it is boring. Shove proof. Where does GNU support non-free software?
Anywhere where non-free software for GNU is run. Odd question.
equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Get yourself a CD of the official release and try to find any.
What the CD's contain isn't relevant. It is the action of Debian that matters.
The CDs are debian. They are the ultimate action of the debian project.
I'd go on an equal rampage if the FSF started doing the same.
I somewhat doubt it, but I hope we never find out.
'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
Thanks, so once and for all the issue of Debian recommending and supporting non-free software is put to a rest. It does so, and it is intentional.
The addition of Sun Java to Debian has not been condoned. Another wild accusation without evidence.
Obviously it was condoned, it was added. As you quoted the SC yourself, non-free software is explictly part of Debian. So there was nothing really wrong with adding Sun Java to Debian, or any other non-free software that exists in the non-free group of Debian.
I expect GNU does host non-free software somewhere, but I don't know whether ftp.microsoft.com runs GNU, so I don't see the relevance of that.
Where? Where does the GNU project host non-free software? I have asked you now several times, please show me where the GNU project hosts non-free software.
No, debian does not recommend or depend on non-free software. (debian-policy s2.2.1, yet again)
From the SC: 'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these ...'. So you are saying that the SC is violating the Debian policies or the other way around?
Anywhere where non-free software for GNU is run. Odd question.
Non-free software for GNU? What kind of software is that? Can you show concrete examples?
The CDs are debian. They are the ultimate action of the debian project.
The CD's are a method to distribute parts of Debian. You quoted the SC: 'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these ...' Clearly, non-free software is part of Debian. You cannot dispute it, you are just trying to weasle your way around by redefining things as you see fit.
I'd go on an equal rampage if the FSF started doing the same.
I somewhat doubt it, but I hope we never find out.
Why do you doubt it? Why are you on a constant basis trying to start throwing mud at me? I'm frankly sick and tired of it! Stop it!
> Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are > equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Get yourself a CD of the official release and try to find any.
Why we have to make a distinction based on the medium of distribution? Why Debian Project gladly distributes proprietary software on the Internet, but feels shy to distribute it burned on CD's?
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
There is little to choose between Fedora Core and Debian's main IMO, except Fedora Core includes non-free-software FDL-covered works
FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.
I've enjoyed THAT particular debate and in my mind the case is not clear that FDL covered things are not software. The fact that PGP source was distributed as a literary work should be a start for anyone who is not sure about this. The fact that many documents or books include code fragments and significant code fragments should be another clue; And please don't think about literary programming. However; let us not repeat THAT debate, my point is that because Alfred's claim :
FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.
is not acceptable as a true to many people including me. Even if he says it twice. I suppose in the same way that Alfred still thinks that (as he says):
Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software. Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
Despite it being made most clear that this is not the case.
Perhaps he feels that where Debian = many people associated with Debian and "recommends, condones and supports" are broad, something is bound to nearly stick; but these general claims don't overcome the specific replies that have been made to this charge.
I think GBN = Canonicalized Saints; but most people are just looking for a nice Priest.
Sam
The fact that PGP source was distributed as a literary work should be a start for anyone who is not sure about this.
The PGP source was non-free.
The fact that many documents or books include code fragments and significant code fragments should be another clue;
Not really. I suggest you read the license:
| If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we | recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of | free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to | permit their use in free software.
Different rights are required for different works. It is as simple as that.
Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software. Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
Despite it being made most clear that this is not the case.
It is the case, Debian gives space, distributes non-free software, and explicitly supports non-free software. Just because you and MJ like to insist that "It isn't the case" doesn't make it any less true.
If Debian was so pure and wonderful, then it would be listed as a 100% free software system and recommended by the GNU project. But it isn't, since Debian includes non-free software.
Perhaps he feels that where Debian = many people associated with Debian and "recommends, condones and supports" are broad, something is bound to nearly stick; but these general claims don't overcome the specific replies that have been made to this charge.
No, I mean Debian the project as a whole, every part of the project. Including Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD, etc etc etc. Once again you go after a straw man, it is getting quite boring now.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
It is the case, Debian gives space, distributes non-free software, and explicitly supports non-free software. Just because you and MJ like to insist that "It isn't the case" doesn't make it any less true.
The debian /project/ does those things. I don't like it, but I've never denied it. The debian OS shouldn't do any of those things.
If Debian was so pure and wonderful, then it would be listed as a 100% free software system and recommended by the GNU project. But it isn't, since Debian includes non-free software.
Debian doesn't include non-free software. I'm not sure why it isn't recommended by the GNU project. I think it's most likely some erroneous beliefs of some @gnu.org and now that we won't include all FSF's adware manuals without question. We are bazaar and maybe cathedral-builders dislike that.
No, I mean Debian the project as a whole, every part of the project. Including Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD, etc etc
Debian is not the project, it's the operating system. All of Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD should be 100% free software or it's a serious bug that will be dealt with accordingly.
etc. Once again you go after a straw man, it is getting quite boring now.
I don't think only one side should get to duff up scarecrows.
It is the case, Debian gives space, distributes non-free software, and explicitly supports non-free software. Just because you and MJ like to insist that "It isn't the case" doesn't make it any less true.
The debian /project/ does those things. I don't like it, but I've never denied it. The debian OS shouldn't do any of those things.
[...]
Debian doesn't include non-free software.
So which is it? Debian doesn't support and distribute non-free? Or does it?
I'm not sure why it isn't recommended by the GNU project.
Because it _includes and supports_ non-free software. It is really that simple.
No, I mean Debian the project as a whole, every part of the project. Including Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD, etc etc
Debian is not the project, it's the operating system. All of Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD should be 100% free software or it's a serious bug that will be dealt with accordingly.
Then please explain non-free which are part of those systems, and part of the Debian project. That you say that it isn't doesn't make it true, it clearly is. You said your self so in the first paragraph of this message, but later contradicted yourself.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It is the case, Debian gives space, distributes non-free software, and explicitly supports non-free software. Just because you and MJ like to insist that "It isn't the case" doesn't make it any less true.
The debian /project/ does those things. I don't like it, but I've never denied it. The debian OS shouldn't do any of those things.
[...]
Debian doesn't include non-free software.
So which is it? Debian doesn't support and distribute non-free? Or does it?
Since the first statement clearly speaks of the "Debian project" and the second of "Debian", and since MJ Ray made you aware of the fact that there is a difference between the two, I cannot see a contradiction.
Have you read something about the Debian Project and Debian and the relation between both? http://www.debian.org/intro/about.en.html:
"The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. This operating system that we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or simply Debian for short."
This clearly refers to two different concepts: 1) the Debian Project 2) the operating system Debian GNU/Linux
The operating system is also called "Debian". The Debian Project is not the operating system, it (the Debian Project) distributes the system distribution (Debian). I have the impression that you use the term "Debian" not only to refer to the operating system but to refer to the Debian Project alike. But calling the Debian Project "Debian" is your personal terminology.
I'm not sure why it isn't recommended by the GNU project.
Because it _includes and supports_ non-free software. It is really that simple.
http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages.en.html:
"All packages that are included in the official Debian distribution are free according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. [...] The official Debian distribution is what is contained in the main section of the Debian archive."
Thus, Debian does *not* include non-free, plain as that. However, the Debian Project distributes non-free on their servers. But since Debian is not the Debian Project but a free operating system distribution, it is not clear why Debian is not listed as a free GNU/Linux distribution on http://www.gnu.org/links/.
No, I mean Debian the project as a whole, every part of the project. Including Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD, etc etc
Debian is not the project, it's the operating system. All of Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD should be 100% free software or it's a serious bug that will be dealt with accordingly.
Then please explain non-free which are part of those systems
You don't mean the official Debian distributions, do you? Because it has been made clear over and over again that the official Debian distribution ought not include non-free software, and that if some package depends on non-free software, it will be removed from main, i.e. it will be removed from the official Debian distribution.
, and part of the Debian project.
What do you mean by "part of Debian project"? As stated, the Debian Project is a group of people, not a software system of which non-free software could be a part of.
You are probably attacking the fact that these people do not only offer the free Debian distribution on their servers but also offer non-free software that integrates into Debian. Maybe you also want to say that distinguishing between the Debian Project and the Debian distribution (aka Debian) is splitting hairs. *But these are different issues.* If you want to discuss this, then please make your point clear by adopting common terminology, but do not say that Debian includes non-free software, since others do not equate "Debian" with "Debian Project" as you obviously do.
You said your self so in the first paragraph of this message, but later contradicted yourself.
No, you're using your personal terminology when it comes to "Debian" and are thereby obscuring issues. We cannot have a serious discussion, if you are redefining the words others use without making this clear.
Sorry for the nitpicking but it seems to be necessary for the discussion to go on...
Regards
1) the Debian Project 2) the operating system Debian GNU/Linux
I see no reason why one should differentiate between the two. If the GNU project hosted non-free software on ftp.gnu.org, but it wasn't included in the GNU system then it would still be wrong. The goal is 100% freedom, and you don't get it by distributing more non-free software, be it in your system or as part of the project infrastructure.
But since Debian is not the Debian Project but a free operating system distribution, it is not clear why Debian is not listed as a free GNU/Linux distribution on http://www.gnu.org/links/.
Because Debian (the project) hosts non-free software for Debian (the operating system). As Debian (the operating system) is part of Debian (the project), recommending a Debian (the operating system) would be the distribution and support of non-free software that Debian (the project) supports. Recommending the operating system means recommending the project--and its actions--that makes the operating system.
If Debian (the operating system) and Debian (the project, who hosts non-free software (I do not agree 100% since I see no real difference between the project that makes a operating system and the operating system itself, but I'll be flexiblie)) were two completley sperate entities, then Debian (the operating system) would be surley l`isted on http://www.gnu.org/links/.
Sorry for the nitpicking but it seems to be necessary for the discussion to go on...
I welcome nitpicking. But it seems that we are not allowed to have this discussion at all here if we listen to the threats by Stefano Maffulli. Maybe he should do as he preaches and get a killfile instead of threatening people from continuing a discussion that he obviously dislikes, but others wish to continue (if they don't wish to continue it, then they shouldn't reply).
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 21:37 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Because Debian (the project) hosts non-free software for Debian (the operating system). As Debian (the operating system) is part of Debian (the project), recommending a Debian (the operating system) would be the distribution and support of non-free software that Debian (the project) supports. Recommending the operating system means recommending the project--and its actions--that makes the operating system.
Going down this line of reasoning the GNU project should refrain from releasing any software that can run on proprietary operating system because doing so is recommending the use of these proprietary operating systems.
Is there anyone in FSF/FSFE that can explain why the GNU Project distribute software that can run on proprietary OSs?
Simo.
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:25:24 +0100 MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
http://www.utoto.org/ (linked from gnu.org) is refusing connections, so I have not checked it.
The correct link is http://www.ututo.org, but the link at http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions contains the correct URL.
Cheers, Bjoern
Bjoern Schiessle schiessle@fsfe.org
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
http://www.utoto.org/ (linked from gnu.org) is refusing connections, so I have not checked it.
The correct link is http://www.ututo.org, but the link at http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions contains the correct URL.
Strange. Thanks for the correction. Actually neither direct entry of that (wrong) address (host not found) nor use of that (correct) link (connection refused) worked for me earlier, but I guess the different error messages should have pointed that I'd done something wrong.
I didn't find a list of packages in their current release, but I note that its "Sources" download directory still seems to contain mpg123 and the nvidia drivers.
Following links offered to get some information in English brings messages like "You don't have permission to access /www/modules/definitions/ on this server" or similar, so I'm not sure, but it looks like it's a gentoo-style system and only its programs are promised to be free software. I didn't find any GNU/Hurd commitment.
"About UTUTO" seems to be about some lizard. Appropriate.
Hasn't changed my view that debian is our current friendliest free software operating system.
I didn't find a list of packages in their current release, but I note that its "Sources" download directory still seems to contain mpg123 and the nvidia drivers.
mpg123 is free software, patent encumbered yes. But free software. I use Ututo, can you point me where these nvidious drivers are? I cannot find them.
And it is quite funny that you are only able to find one example of what is a simple mistake if it exists, while Debian has a whole section dedicated to non-free software. It is quite hypocritical of you.
I didn't find any GNU/Hurd commitment.
Why is this even relevant?
Hasn't changed my view that debian is our current friendliest free software operating system.
It is the one of the least friendly free software operating system, as noted before, Fedora Core is 100% free software currently (the reason why it isn't listed as a recommended system is that it has vauge terms as to what they include, but today it is 100% free). Then you have the GNU/Linux systems listed on http://www.gnu.org. Debian isn't mentioned.
Debian/SPI/ftpmasters are legally responsible for whatever is put into non-free.
Debian - no. SPI - sometimes. ftpmasters - sometimes.
That is like saying that those who violate a copyright license are only somtimes liable for copyright violations.
One does not get more people using free software by saying: Here, have some non-free software as well.
Indeed. I think that's part of why it's not on the distribution CDs.
That it isn't part of the CD's is more because it would require a bunch of extra CD's.
However, you don't let people know that something is non-free software by never mentioning its non-free-ness and you never free software by ignoring it.
That is why one speaks of non-free software in general and why it is bad, and not recommending it like Debian does. I suggest you take a look at http://www.gnu.org and http://www.fsf.org for examples on how to mention non-free-ness without recommending, supporting, and distributing non-free software.
Instead, in later years, we've seen FSFers recommend other distributions which had mixed non-free software into their CDs.
The FSF has never done any such thing. If a piece of non-free software was in a GNU/Linux distribution that the FSF recommended, it got promotly removed. Everyone can make errors, but claiming that the FSF recommended non-free software is simply false.
Debian takes some crap for being clear and honest in its labelling.
Sorry, that is simply wrong. You say that Debian is 100% free, well, clearly it isn't. Debian distributes and promotes non-free software. It is as simple as that. That you then tell everyone that a square is a sphere is quite depressing.
Cheers.
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 13:28 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Debian takes some crap for being clear and honest in its labelling.
Sorry, that is simply wrong. You say that Debian is 100% free, well, clearly it isn't. Debian distributes and promotes non-free software. It is as simple as that. That you then tell everyone that a square is a sphere is quite depressing.
FSF doesn't promote Debian, because Debian has non-free. Debian doesn't include some FSF documents, because they believe they are non-free.
That both sides don't agree with each other over small areas (Debian's non-free, or the FSF's GFDL'd docs) really doesn't matter a huge amount in the grand scheme of things IMHO. The FSF and Debian have vastly more in common than they disagree over.
The BSD community also don't think the GPL is 100% free. We'll always have these disagreements. We're a broad church, and will always have these disagreements. It doesn't help to keep going over them though, I think - I'm sure people on both sides understand the other's position.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
FSF doesn't promote Debian, because Debian has non-free.
Correct. If someone uses non-free software that means that he/she doesn't value his/her freedom. But if someone, particularly if this someone is one of the major GNU distributions, a free software project, offers proprietary software to its users hiding behind the "Our priority are our users" slogan, well, that is not only totally unacceptable, it is disgusting.
Debian doesn't include some FSF documents, because they believe they are non-free.
Imagine how this looks like to us, a poor flock of Debian users -- an advice (not really, a "statement") from the Debian Project, a project that *distributes* non-free software, that GFDL is conditionally free (actually, that's the statement as per the GR, the debian-legal folks' consensus is that it is non-free under all circumstances). I would not accept advice towards free software and documentation from someone who considers distribution of non-free software a justified action, an ethically and morally acceptable thing. This is a paradox. At the same time, at debian-devel-announce there is an announcement of the *absolutely the same non-free as it was* Java and some developers are happy about the inclusion in the archive! This is absolute hypocrisy, while one cannot observe anything similar in the FSF's actions.
That both sides don't agree with each other over small areas (Debian's non-free, or the FSF's GFDL'd docs) really doesn't matter a huge amount in the grand scheme of things IMHO.
If you consider promoting and distributing of non-free software a small area, that's ok. But it is fundamental NOT to do that for those who support the Free Software Movement.
The FSF and Debian have vastly more in common than they disagree over.
I'd love if this was true -- as a devoted Debian user and maintainer of some (unofficial) packages, I can hardly explain how the present situation hurts me. However, many "technical" guys have joined the Debian Project and their votes count. Obviously it is far more important for them to be a "successful" distribution than to stand firm behind the ideals and principles of Free Software.
The BSD community also don't think the GPL is 100% free. We'll always have these disagreements. We're a broad church, and will always have these disagreements. It doesn't help to keep going over them though, I think - I'm sure people on both sides understand the other's position.
We consider the BSD-like licences free with the important exception that these licences do not *protect* the freedom -- and we consider protecting the freedom an extremely important thing. I always wondered why we don't strongly object against your licencing policy while the BSD community had always fiercly opposed the GPL.
Just imagine, if every free software in the world was under the GPL, Apple couldn't have managed to create Muck OS X (some people call this system technically superior and are seduced to use it), there wouldn't be proprieatary variants of Apache, etc, etc. We would have our Freedom Island intact and expanding.
Cheers and good luck.
* Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org [060626 20:46]:
Correct. If someone uses non-free software that means that he/she doesn't value his/her freedom. But if someone, particularly if this someone is one of the major GNU distributions, a free software project, offers proprietary software to its users hiding behind the "Our priority are our users" slogan, well, that is not only totally unacceptable, it is disgusting.
Hiding depends from where you look. I think you are hiding behind your hate on evil licensed software, so you do not have to see the need of users. Sadly propietary software exists and many are locked into using it, but they still have the right to profit from as much free software as possible.
[...] This is absolute hypocrisy, while one cannot observe anything similar in the FSF's actions.
I think you are confusing hypocrisy with inconsitency. Debian does not claim all is good and well, but that there are many compromises and is not even at one with itself with many of those. It's not claiming only saints without failing are allowed to get salvation while freedom only matters for the one thing while for other things freedom is something totally different.
That both sides don't agree with each other over small areas (Debian's non-free, or the FSF's GFDL'd docs) really doesn't matter a huge amount in the grand scheme of things IMHO.
If you consider promoting and distributing of non-free software a small area, that's ok. But it is fundamental NOT to do that for those who support the Free Software Movement.
Please do not confuse support for Free Software with your opinion about how this should be done. For me its about freedom for the humans using software. Killing anyone writing, distributing, using or mentioning propietary software might be a good way to only have Free Software, but it would not solve the ultimate goal, to free the humans from restrictions from evily licensed software.
Bernhard R. Link
Killing anyone writing, distributing, using or mentioning propietary software might be a good way to only have Free Software, but it would not solve the ultimate goal, to free the humans from restrictions from evily licensed software.
I strongly disagree with you at this point -- I don't think that killing for free software is a good way to achieve software freedom for users. I suggest just not to distribute proprietary software to them.
Or may be I should parse your argument like this: "So what, Debian Project is a proprietary software vendor, not a murderer". Of course, to distribute proprietary software is bad and unethical, but not as bad and unethical as to kill users. I agree with you here.
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org wrote:
Or may be I should parse your argument like this: "So what, Debian Project is a proprietary software vendor, not a murderer". [...]
The Debian Project does not sell proprietary software.
Following general sentiment when it was founded, the project does not sell any software, although there have been recent moves to change that, most notably from some of the CD Images production team. The CD Images don't contain proprietary software either, so even if selling starts, the Debian Project still won't necessarily sell non-free. Although if the pro-FSF proportion of developers keeps shrinking, anything's possible.
Hope that explains,
> Or may be I should parse your argument like this: "So what, Debian > Project is a proprietary software vendor, not a murderer". [...]
The Debian Project does not sell proprietary software.
In the same sense Microsoft is not Internet Explorer's vendor, Sun Microsystems is not Java (TM)'s vendor, Oracle is not Oracle Database Client's vendor, and Adobe is not Acrobat Reader (TM)'s vendor, because these programs are not sold (e.g. distributed at no cost), therefore, they have no vendors. In this sense, Debian Project is not a proprietary software vendor, yes.
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org
The Debian Project does not sell proprietary software.
In the same sense Microsoft is not Internet Explorer's vendor, Sun Microsystems is not Java (TM)'s vendor, Oracle is not Oracle Database Client's vendor, and Adobe is not Acrobat Reader (TM)'s vendor, because these programs are not sold (e.g. distributed at no cost), therefore, they have no vendors. In this sense, Debian Project is not a proprietary software vendor, yes.
In a wider sense: the Debian Project does not hold copyright of any proprietary software, unlike Microsoft, Sun, Oracle and Adobe. Maybe you meant manufacturer or producer, but the Debian Project doesn't do that either.
The Debian Project is even less of a proprietary software vendor than Linux Magazine, who published Georg's Brave GNU World in a friendly way IIRC, so some FSFers must have thought them worthy of assistance. So helping Debian should not be a problem.
Hope that explains,
The Debian Project is even less of a proprietary software vendor than Linux Magazine, who published Georg's Brave GNU World in a friendly way IIRC, so some FSFers must have thought them worthy of assistance.
Brave GNU world is licensed under a free license that allows republication. Comparing a project and a magazine is beyond absurd. Are you going to imply that if Microsoft publishes a copy of the GNU Manifesto, then the "FSFers" must have thought them worthy of assistance? Please. Stop being silly MJ.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
The Debian Project is even less of a proprietary software vendor than Linux Magazine, who published Georg's Brave GNU World in a
^^^^
friendly way IIRC, so some FSFers must have thought them worthy of
^^^^^^^^^^^^
assistance.
Brave GNU world is licensed under a free license that allows republication. Comparing a project and a magazine is beyond absurd.
Please note the highlighted part above.
Are you going to imply that if Microsoft publishes a copy of the GNU Manifesto, then the "FSFers" must have thought them worthy of assistance?
If done in the same way, with recommendation at the top of a page like http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/bgw/bgw.en.html 'Started in January 1999, the Brave GNU World is a monthly column which has since then been released in nine languages[*] on the web and printed in the German "Linux-Magazin," the "Linux Magazine" U.K., "Microsoftware" (a large computer magazine in Korea) and the "Linux-Magazine" in France.' then I would, yes.
Hope that explains,
Are you going to imply that if Microsoft publishes a copy of the GNU Manifesto, then the "FSFers" must have thought them worthy of assistance?
If done in the same way, with recommendation at the top of a page like http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/bgw/bgw.en.html 'Started in January 1999, the Brave GNU World is a monthly column which has since then been released in nine languages[*] on the web and printed in the German "Linux-Magazin," the "Linux Magazine" U.K., "Microsoftware" (a large computer magazine in Korea) and the "Linux-Magazine" in France.' then I would, yes.
Where is this recommendation? I don't see anything remotley close to `Read Linux-Magazin!!!' or even `You can get a gratis copy of Linux-Magazin by doing foo'.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Are you going to imply that if Microsoft publishes a copy of the GNU Manifesto, then the "FSFers" must have thought them worthy of assistance?
If done in the same way, with recommendation at the top of a page like http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/bgw/bgw.en.html 'Started in January 1999, the Brave GNU World is a monthly column which has since then been released in nine languages[*] on the web and printed in the German "Linux-Magazin," the "Linux Magazine" U.K., "Microsoftware" (a large computer magazine in Korea) and the "Linux-Magazine" in France.' then I would, yes.
Where is this recommendation? I don't see anything remotley close to `Read Linux-Magazin!!!' or even `You can get a gratis copy of Linux-Magazin by doing foo'.
s/recommendation/linking/ and the point remains valid. http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/intro.en.html also says: "The release date is coordinated to appear simultaneously with Linux-Magazin." It's obvious there was assistance.
Boggling,
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Are you going to imply that if Microsoft publishes a copy of the GNU Manifesto, then the "FSFers" must have thought them worthy of assistance?
If done in the same way, with recommendation at the top of a page like http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/bgw/bgw.en.html 'Started in January 1999, the Brave GNU World is a monthly column which has since then been released in nine languages[*] on the web and printed in the German "Linux-Magazin," the "Linux Magazine" U.K., "Microsoftware" (a large computer magazine in Korea) and the "Linux-Magazine" in France.' then I would, yes.
Where is this recommendation? I don't see anything remotley close to `Read Linux-Magazin!!!' or even `You can get a gratis copy of Linux-Magazin by doing foo'.
s/recommendation/linking/ and the point remains valid. http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/intro.en.html also says: "The release date is coordinated to appear simultaneously with Linux-Magazin." It's obvious there was assistance.
A wonderful, now you simply change your argumentation. There is a huge difference between linking to a site that happens to do something remotley related, and distributing, and supporting non-free software. Can you please show where the GNU project and/or the FSF recommends, supports and condones the usage of non-free software? You have up to this point not done so, only come with utterly vauge linkage to some magazine that is about GNU/Linux.
I have shown specific examples of where Debian supports and distributes non-free software, Sun Java. Please show where the FSF and/or GNU project do anything similar, or please stop your FSF/GNU hate rampage.
Please, stop this thread: it has become pointless. It is really not interesting to discuss the 'freeness' of organizations that are on the same field of the battle and share the same values (even thought implementation differs). Enough and get back to the original thread.
thanks stef
> The Debian Project does not sell proprietary software. > > In the same sense Microsoft is not Internet Explorer's vendor, Sun > Microsystems is not Java (TM)'s vendor, Oracle is not Oracle Database > Client's vendor, and Adobe is not Acrobat Reader (TM)'s vendor, because > these programs are not sold (e.g. distributed at no cost), therefore, > they have no vendors. In this sense, Debian Project is not a > proprietary software vendor, yes.
In a wider sense: the Debian Project does not hold copyright of any proprietary software, unlike Microsoft, Sun, Oracle and Adobe.
Indeed, one can act unethically (in Debian Project's case -- distributing proprietary software to users) without a clear and obvious motive. I really do not understand Debian Project's motivation to organize unethical activities, but unfortunately, they do not convert to ethical ones just by this reason.
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org
In a wider sense: the Debian Project does not hold copyright of any proprietary software, unlike Microsoft, Sun, Oracle and Adobe.
Indeed, one can act unethically (in Debian Project's case -- distributing proprietary software to users) without a clear and obvious motive. I really do not understand Debian Project's motivation to organize unethical activities, but unfortunately, they do not convert to ethical ones just by this reason.
'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
Maybe neither of us agrees with the resulting action, but I think that's an understandable, clear and obvious motive. The Debian OS itself is 100% free software nevertheless and the project doesn't develop proprietary software. I'd expect the debian project to be in GBN's contrib list, not GBN itself.
'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
Maybe neither of us agrees with the resulting action, but I think that's an understandable, clear and obvious motive. The Debian OS itself is 100% free software nevertheless and the project doesn't develop proprietary software.
No, it isn't. It is quite irrelevant how much you quote the Social Contract. Go look at ftp.debian.org for a change, specially in the non-free and contrib directories. Infact, Debian does develop non-free software, since DD's who support the non-free section do exactly that, develop it.
I'd expect the debian project to be in GBN's contrib list, not GBN itself.
I expect GBN not to have a "contrib" list, since such a list will only recommend companies that do non-free software.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contractMaybe neither of us agrees with the resulting action, but I think that's an understandable, clear and obvious motive. The Debian OS itself is 100% free software nevertheless and the project doesn't develop proprietary software.
No, it isn't. It is quite irrelevant how much you quote the Social Contract. Go look at ftp.debian.org for a change, specially in the non-free and contrib directories. Infact, Debian does develop non-free software, since DD's who support the non-free section do exactly that, develop it.
I'd expect the debian project to be in GBN's contrib list, not GBN itself.
I expect GBN not to have a "contrib" list, since such a list will only recommend companies that do non-free software.
Such a list will be seen by some (possibly including you) to condemn companies that do non-free software. The only people who would regard a citation on such a list as a pure recommendation also open and reply to spam mails with great expectations.
FSF seem to refrain from any activity that involves people making up their own minds, and anxious to avoid providing any material in any form which might help a user incorrectly arrive at the "wrong" conclusion.
Sadly this tendancy also makes it hard for many free thinkers to find anything to help them come to the right conclusion.
If GBN goes the way it looks like, then I expect it to be largely irrelevant to me and those I associate with; this is no standard of usefullness or good (naturally) but it is a standard of uselessness that one can hope is not replicated widely, otherwise GBN will be "correct" but almost entirely without benefit.
Sam
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
No, it isn't. It is quite irrelevant how much you quote the Social Contract. Go look at ftp.debian.org for a change, specially in the non-free and contrib directories.
As explained months ago in http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-February/005538.html comparing ftp.debian.org with ftp.ibiblio.org is more accurate, as the debian.org and gnu.org name policies are different. The main GNU ftp server also distributes non-free software.
Infact, Debian does develop non-free software, since DD's who support the non-free section do exactly that, develop it.
No more than GNU develops non-free software because some of its developers also support non-free software. That is, not at all.
Hope that explains,
No, it isn't. It is quite irrelevant how much you quote the Social Contract. Go look at ftp.debian.org for a change, specially in the non-free and contrib directories.
As explained months ago in http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-February/005538.html comparing ftp.debian.org with ftp.ibiblio.org is more accurate, as the debian.org and gnu.org name policies are different. The main GNU ftp server also distributes non-free software.
ftp.gnu.org does not distribute non-free software.
Infact, Debian does develop non-free software, since DD's who support the non-free section do exactly that, develop it.
No more than GNU develops non-free software because some of its developers also support non-free software. That is, not at all.
GNU doesn't develop non-free software. Nor does GNU support non-free software. That some contributors send patches for that things work with non-free software does not mean that GNU supports or develops non-free software.
Please stop tossing mud at the FSF and the GNU project with these false and absurd accusations.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:30 +0300, Kaloian Doganov wrote:
Indeed, one can act unethically (in Debian Project's case -- distributing proprietary software to users) without a clear and obvious motive. I really do not understand Debian Project's motivation to organize unethical activities, but unfortunately, they do not convert to ethical ones just by this reason.
There is a plainly obvious motive: providing software that users require and for which there is no free alternative.
It's pretty easy to see the work Debian is doing in non-free:
http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/
A large proportion of these applications are there because of disagreements/misunderstandings of licensing conditions. Debian is working actively to resolve these so that the applications are genuinely free software; look down the 'Resolution' column at the number of apps that are being properly relicensed thanks to Debian.
Another significant proportion is stuff that the FSF wouldn't consider non-free software (eg., GFDL documents, other data [game files?] unmodifiable).
I understand totally why the FSF feel they cannot endorse the Debian distribution, due to the project also distributing a small amount of non-free software. I don't understand a reaction like the above: until _all_ proprietary software in the world is gone, free software has to work alongside it and there will be users who require it. We should be encouraging people to use free software whenever possible, and understanding that it isn't always the case that it is possible.
I think the work that Debian does in removing non-free dependencies and transitioning apps from non-free to main is to be wholly applauded. I've no idea how much stuff that actually is, but I keep seeing big swathes of Java apps move in that direction, and I think that's excellent.
Cheers,
Alex.
Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org
someone is one of the major GNU distributions, a free software project, offers proprietary software to its users hiding behind the "Our priority are our users" slogan, well, that is not only totally unacceptable, it is disgusting.
debian does not hide this, unlike some other distributions. That is another promise: "We will not hide problems." It would be unacceptable to hide it, but it isn't hidden, so save the disgust for those who merit it.
Imagine how this looks like to us, a poor flock of Debian users -- an advice (not really, a "statement") from the Debian Project, a project that *distributes* non-free software, that GFDL is conditionally free
2006/vote_001 was a position statement, not advice to others. The debian project sometimes advises others, but this wasn't one of those times. I know the press release was rather misleading on that, but that's a known bug with debian press IMO.
(actually, that's the statement as per the GR, the debian-legal folks' consensus is that it is non-free under all circumstances).
Not sure whether it's consensus and trying to determine that is rather irrelevant following the position statement. I still can't see why the source and DRM parts are acceptable, but I can't change that decision for the whole project.
[...] at debian-devel-announce there is an announcement of the *absolutely the same non-free as it was* Java and some developers are happy about the inclusion in the archive!
Some other developers are very unhappy, but the best advice was that certain developers have put themselves at risk, not the project, so it's not something many want to work against directly. Why waste time working on non-free software?
This is absolute hypocrisy, while one cannot observe anything similar in the FSF's actions.
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know. (FSFE seemed better, though, with accounts online at http://www.fsfeurope.org/about/funds/funds.en.html although a little out-of-date now?)
[...] However, many "technical" guys have joined the Debian Project and their votes count. Obviously it is far more important for them to be a "successful" distribution than to stand firm behind the ideals and principles of Free Software.
It should be possible to do both, but you don't reverse any such trend by attacking the "stand firm" developers. Enough already seem to be leaving the project, for various reasons, without extra abuse.
[...] I always wondered why we don't strongly object against your licencing policy while the BSD community had always fiercly opposed the GPL.
"your licencing policy"? Alex Hudson was not a debian developer last I knew, although I'd more than welcome it.
Hope that explains,
debian does not hide this, unlike some other distributions.
No, what Debian does is worse: it claims to be 100% free software when it is not.
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
No, what Debian does is worse: it claims to be 100% free software when it is not.
Debian is 100% free software, or it's a serious bug. If you find something in debian which isn't free software, please report it as described at http://www.fr.debian.org/Bugs/
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Only an absurd illustration and not a serious one, but the comment that one cannot observe most of FSF's actions is not at all absurd.
No, what Debian does is worse: it claims to be 100% free software when it is not.
Debian is 100% free software, or it's a serious bug. If you find something in debian which isn't free software, please report it as described at http://www.fr.debian.org/Bugs/
Anything and everything in non-free. Please remove it.
(If you claim that non-free is not part of Debian, then you're just deluding yourself)
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Only an absurd illustration and not a serious one, but the comment that one cannot observe most of FSF's actions is not at all absurd.
It is abusrd, since it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
No, what Debian does is worse: it claims to be 100% free software when it is not.
Debian is 100% free software, or it's a serious bug. If you find something in debian which isn't free software, please report it as described at http://www.fr.debian.org/Bugs/
Anything and everything in non-free. Please remove it.
(If you claim that non-free is not part of Debian, then you're just deluding yourself)
In which case you should conclude that you are dealing with a deluded world; thats the point you are missing. You need to deal with the "rest of the world" on their own terms, or be totally ineffectual.
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Only an absurd illustration and not a serious one, but the comment that one cannot observe most of FSF's actions is not at all absurd.
It is abusrd, since it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It served to show that the Debian openness which is greater than the FSF openness which showed that contrib is not part of Debian means nothing to you.
It shows you believe contrib to be part of Debian despite the most plain and open evidence.
It helps us know how to interpret everything else you say.
Sam
It served to show that the Debian openness which is greater than the FSF openness which showed that contrib is not part of Debian means nothing to you.
The openness of Debian vs. the FSF is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Debian supporting non-free software. It is just a lousy attempt at mud tossing.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It served to show that the Debian openness which is greater than the FSF openness which showed that contrib is not part of Debian means nothing to you.
The openness of Debian vs. the FSF is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Debian supporting non-free software. It is just a lousy attempt at mud tossing.
It is not relevant, it was relevantly given in answer to your refusal to accept official debian statements that contrib was not part of debian. In your responses where you edit out these statements and repeat your claims, have shown that these official statements mean nothing to you. And so it is not even an attempt at mud tossing.
Sam
It is not relevant, it was relevantly given in answer to your refusal to accept official debian statements that contrib was not part of debian.
The official statements, doesn't change the fact that Debian Projects develops and distributes proprietary software to users.
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
Debian is 100% free software, or it's a serious bug. If you find something in debian which isn't free software, please report it as described at http://www.fr.debian.org/Bugs/
Anything and everything in non-free. Please remove it. (If you claim that non-free is not part of Debian, then you're just deluding yourself)
No delusion - it's in the debian project's foundation documents.
BTW "Email discussion@fsfe..." is not on http://www.fr.debian.org/Bugs/
[...]
It is abusrd, since it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It came about near-logically in the context long since lost.
Hope that explains,
Anything and everything in non-free. Please remove it. (If you claim that non-free is not part of Debian, then you're just deluding yourself)
No delusion - it's in the debian project's foundation documents.
Just because some document states this and that doesn't change what the reality is, and it is that Debian supports non-free software, and provides it to its users, and has no intention of removing it.
BTW "Email discussion@fsfe..." is not on http://www.fr.debian.org/Bugs/
I don't use Debian, nor do I recommend it. I recommend and use 100% free software GNU/Linux systems. I see no point in me trying to help a project that is so anti-(FSF/free software/free documentation/GNU) as Debian since there are already better alternatives that are 100% OK, like Ututo.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
debian does not hide this, unlike some other distributions.
No, what Debian does is worse: it claims to be 100% free software when it is not.
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Yes but in this case the accusation was intended to be absurd and the burden of proof was on FSF; debian having met their burden of proof.
Interestingly what you have done is to delete this explanatory proof and repeat your assertion as if the answer had never been given.
No doubt others can draw their conclusions with as little difficulty as myself.
Sam
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Yes but in this case the accusation was intended to be absurd and the burden of proof was on FSF; debian having met their burden of proof.
Okie, then I accuse Debian of molesting gerbils. The burn of proof is now on Debian to prove the opposite.
Both you and MJ seem to have a concorted notion of whom the burden of proof lies on, it is on the person who accuses someone: Innocent until proven guilty.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:46 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Yes but in this case the accusation was intended to be absurd and the burden of proof was on FSF; debian having met their burden of proof.
Okie, then I accuse Debian of molesting gerbils. The burn of proof is now on Debian to prove the opposite.
I think you're misunderstanding his point: it's not that he thinks it's likely that the FSF is purchasing proprietary software. What he is noting is that, because of the lack of transparency in the FSF finances, there is no way to tell what the FSF actually spends its money on. The silliness distracts from the serious point, but a serious point exists here nevertheless:
If the FSF wants us to be able to look under the hood of our software and documentation and see how it works, I'm not sure I understand why we can't similarly be allowed to look under the hood of the FSF.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:46 +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
I hope that you are not seriously meaning what you wrote here. Don't confuse freedom with democracy.
Neither should we confuse transparency with democracy. Doesn't the FSF believe transparency is fundamental to freedom as enshrined in the four freedoms?
Kind regards...
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
More absurd accusations without the the least of proof.
Yes but in this case the accusation was intended to be absurd and the burden of proof was on FSF; debian having met their burden of proof.
Okie, then I accuse Debian of molesting gerbils. The burn of proof is now on Debian to prove the opposite.
Both you and MJ seem to have a concorted notion of whom the burden of proof lies on, it is on the person who accuses someone: Innocent until proven guilty.
You seem to like debating jujitsu and to deflect the point, most observers can see this whether or not you think so, and they draw their own conclusions.
MJ Ray was stating that the Debian position was 1) Not what you claim 2) Very open and easy to see, and by comparison more open than FSF
Your interesting response is: Ah, but for all we know while we are secretly buying lotus notes, you are molesting gerbils.
The point is, Debian are more open than FSF, and by such openness the Debian position on Contrib et al is very clear.
Sam
The point is, Debian are more open than FSF, and by such openness the Debian position on Contrib et al is very clear.
A point that has absolutley no relevance here, and it is simple mind boggling why it has been brought up.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The point is, Debian are more open than FSF, and by such openness the Debian position on Contrib et al is very clear.
A point that has absolutley no relevance here, and it is simple mind boggling why it has been brought up.
because to your mind debian itself is non free. It was brought up as people tried to show that to their mind it was not non free.
The confusion arises from what each party considers debian to be, the discussion made that clear.
Sam
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
Okie, then I accuse Debian of molesting gerbils. The burn of proof is now on Debian to prove the opposite.
Both you and MJ seem to have a concorted notion of whom the burden of proof lies on, it is on the person who accuses someone: Innocent until proven guilty.
I note the near-total lack of evidence (let alone proof) for all of the allegations by Alfred M. Szmidt against debian.
Come on - show us the molested gerbils!
Okie, then I accuse Debian of molesting gerbils. The burn of proof is now on Debian to prove the opposite.
Both you and MJ seem to have a concorted notion of whom the burden of proof lies on, it is on the person who accuses someone: Innocent until proven guilty.
I note the near-total lack of evidence (let alone proof) for all of the allegations by Alfred M. Szmidt against debian.
Come on - show us the molested gerbils!
Can't you resort to anything better than this, Mark J. Ray?
[I have the bitter feeling that we're going in circles, something so typical for a Debian mailing list. I don't think that we both can add something useful to the discussion.]
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:21:39 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
debian does not hide this, unlike some other distributions. That is another promise: "We will not hide problems." It would be unacceptable to hide it, but it isn't hidden, so save the disgust for those who merit it.
Let me rephrase it then. I've often heard the following excuse for the presence of the `non-free' and `contrib' sections: "Our priorities are our users, our users want non-free software, so we're giving it to them. We're fulfilling the promise we gave in the SC."
2006/vote_001 was a position statement, not advice to others.
OK. A statement that the GNU FDL with Invariant Sections is non-free and that even without them is not free of trouble. This indicates an improper notion of `free software', but you may think otherwise, of course. As a user, I cannot take this statement for granted, I don't agree.
Not sure whether it's consensus and trying to determine that is rather irrelevant following the position statement. I still can't see why the source and DRM parts are acceptable, but I can't change that decision for the whole project.
Actually, the practical implication following that vote is that only the documentation of the GNU packages is removed from main. Anton Zinoviev, the original proposer of "GFDL is fully compatible with DFSG" (which, needless to say, should have won) mentioned that the "Invariant Sections" option of the licence is going to be used only by the FSF, but he can't prove that. I agree with this and thus I see the results of the vote as an act of hostility. Debian just wanted to do this anyway, it was not campaign for freedom -- otherwise you could have started by removing the *really* non-free bits. If you think that now that the GNU Emacs Manual and other GNU documentation is not in main, you've made the distribution more free, you're seriously mistaken.
[...] at debian-devel-announce there is an announcement of the *absolutely the same non-free as it was* Java and some developers are happy about the inclusion in the archive!
Some other developers are very unhappy, but the best advice was that certain developers have put themselves at risk, not the project, so it's not something many want to work against directly. Why waste time working on non-free software?
If `non-free' is not part of Debian, why this announcement went on the official ML, the only one that DDs are obliged to be subscribed to? Why there was such a hype in the blogosphere? (I agree, some were unhappy.) Why it sneaked so quickly in the archive?
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
I hope that you are not seriously meaning what you wrote here. Don't confuse freedom with democracy.
It should be possible to do both, but you don't reverse any such trend by attacking the "stand firm" developers. Enough already seem to be leaving the project, for various reasons, without extra abuse.
I didn't mean to abuse anyone, including you, a fellow GNUstepper. I think that the Debian Project is doing enough for abusing themselves; the actions speak much better than any words.
[...] I always wondered why we don't strongly object against your licencing policy while the BSD community had always fiercly opposed the GPL.
"your licencing policy"? Alex Hudson was not a debian developer last I knew, although I'd more than welcome it.
There is a misunderstanding. Alex Hudson wrote: "The BSD community also don't think the GPL is 100% free. We'll always have these disagreements.", so I thought that he's part of the BSD community. I didn't mean Debian at all (as far as I know, there is no such licencing policy in Debian).
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 18:25 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
[...] I always wondered why we don't strongly object against your licencing policy while the BSD community had always fiercly opposed the GPL.
"your licencing policy"? Alex Hudson was not a debian developer last I knew, although I'd more than welcome it.
There is a misunderstanding. Alex Hudson wrote: "The BSD community also don't think the GPL is 100% free. We'll always have these disagreements.", so I thought that he's part of the BSD community. I didn't mean Debian at all (as far as I know, there is no such licencing policy in Debian).
No, I'm not part of either the Debian Project or the BSD community :)
I'm just pointing it out as an example of a divide in the community which is needless, since both sides have more in common than they have in difference.
Cheers,
Alex.
Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org
[I have the bitter feeling that we're going in circles, something so typical for a Debian mailing list. I don't think that we both can add something useful to the discussion.]
Maybe not. I think this often happens with weakly-moderated lists. Many debian lists are weakly-moderated and it seems a shame that this one seems to be going the same way. I'll try to stick to things to which I can add new data.
Let me rephrase it then. I've often heard the following excuse for the presence of the `non-free' and `contrib' sections: [...]
Different problem. I've often heard that FS supporters are lazy and rude (from www.lugradio.org for example) but it doesn't make it true. If you believe everything people tell you, then I've got a load of scrap metal in downtown Paris for sale to you. ( http://www.vectorsite.net/tzcon.html#m2 )
[...] This indicates an improper notion of `free software', but you may think otherwise, of course.
Thanks. I do. IMO, it is improper to claim software == programs. "We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply." -- Eben Moglen, Free Software and the Death of Copyright http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_8/moglen/index.html
As a user, I cannot take this statement for granted, I don't agree.
Sure. Take nothing for granted. Find bugs. This isn't a bug in debian, IMO. It does exactly what it says on the tin.
[debian's FDL position statement after 2006/vote_001]
Actually, the practical implication following that vote is that only the documentation of the GNU packages is removed from main.
Not quite, but it was a pretty bad effect IMO.
Anton Zinoviev, the original proposer of "GFDL is fully compatible with DFSG" (which, needless to say, should have won) mentioned that the "Invariant Sections" option of the licence is going to be used only by the FSF, but he can't prove that.
It can't be proved because it's not true, which is another reason that amendment shouldn't win. Others use those options, such as http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/about-license....
Some even abuse them to make the whole document uneditable, like http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO-23.html or even some GNU maintainers until debian developers noticed like http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/12/msg00389.html
http://www.ljudmila.org/~jaromil/hasciicam/hasciicam.html is interesting. Another FDL-misuse repaired with debian's help in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=292231
There are many more similar, if you look for them.
I agree with this and thus I see the results of the vote as an act of hostility.
So I hope you no longer see it as an act of hostility, now that I have explained why you shouldn't agree that only FSF will exploit Invariant Sections. I hope that the decision would have been the same whether FDL was from FSF or ASF or BASF.
Personally, I think FSF got extra-friendly treatment, with years spent trying to negotiate before that vote was taken.
Debian just wanted to do this anyway, it was not campaign for freedom -- otherwise you could have started by removing the *really* non-free bits.
You may have noticed, we tried to do that before voting on FDL. http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
If you think that now that the GNU Emacs Manual and other GNU documentation is not in main, you've made the distribution more free, you're seriously mistaken.
Removing software which isn't free software doesn't make the distribution less free. Maybe less useful to some.
[sun-java5 in non-free]
If `non-free' is not part of Debian, why this announcement went on the official ML, the only one that DDs are obliged to be subscribed to?
Any DD can send to that list and sometimes it's off-topic.
Why there was such a hype in the blogosphere?
I hope it caused a storm because it was an ugly error of judgement, but I don't know why anything hypes in the blogosphere.
(I agree, some were unhappy.) Why it sneaked so quickly in the archive?
AIUI, the DPL and two ftpmasters ignored usual debian policy and kept it secret in order to meet Sun's deadline. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00173.html
One cannot observe most of FSF's actions. Its funds could be mainly used buying Lotus Notes for distributing Microsoft Word macro games, for all most of us know.
I hope that you are not seriously meaning what you wrote here. Don't confuse freedom with democracy.
Sure, and it wasn't a serious example, but please don't accuse the debian project of hiding things when it's one of the most open things in our community.
"your licencing policy"? Alex Hudson [...]
There is a misunderstanding. [...]
Seems so. Thanks,
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 23:35 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe not. I think this often happens with weakly-moderated lists. Many debian lists are weakly-moderated and it seems a shame that this one seems to be going the same way. I'll try to stick to things to which I can add new data.
It is never nice to have to raise voice to stop a discussion that is going in circle, especially when the discussion bursts into flame in only a few hours.
I ask everybody here on the list to self-moderate, please, maybe using the following techniques: limit the number of messages sent per day to two or three, breath deeply and take long walks before answering email, don't feed the trolls (whoever you think they are), learn to use killfile. Your life will be merrier and the walks will raise the chances for you to get a nice healthy tan :)
thanks stef
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:35:29 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It can't be proved because it's not true, which is another reason that amendment shouldn't win. Others use those options, such as http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/about-license....
Thanks for these links, I wasn't aware of their existence. I consider this one as an abuse of the GFDL -- the invariant sections should contain information that the author considers *important*. In this case the author thinks that he's very important, so I won't use his manual. A more serious flaw is the title "Secure programming for Linux". Obviously he thinks that Linux is an operating system, which is a delusion.
Some even abuse them to make the whole document uneditable, like http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO-23.html
Another abuse of the GFDL. Note that during the debate we (the proponents of the "GFDL is free") pointed out several times that in some cases manuals under this licence may be non-free -- if I include a section about pornography, or drug abuse, for example. In this particular case some may consider the above manual free, some may not. In a similar way, if I include patented algorithms in my GPL'ed program, it won't be free in some countries.
or even some GNU maintainers until debian developers noticed like http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/12/msg00389.html
This is clearly a mistake which RMS has acknowledged. The invariant sections may be only "secondary".
http://www.ljudmila.org/~jaromil/hasciicam/hasciicam.html is interesting. Another FDL-misuse repaired with debian's help in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=292231
This a most prominent abuse of the licence.
Personally, I think FSF got extra-friendly treatment, with years spent trying to negotiate before that vote was taken.
This is an interesting view :-)
Debian just wanted to do this anyway, it was not campaign for freedom -- otherwise you could have started by removing the *really* non-free bits.
You may have noticed, we tried to do that before voting on FDL. http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
Not hard enough, unfortunately.
Look, let's not repeat the whole GFDL debate. Fortunately only a few people (the DDs that voted for it) have such perverted logic. If you think that the GNU Manifesto is adware, I can only say that there is a huge precipice between us. If you think that you can impose your (the project's) view to other distributions to make that decision more legitimate, it's not going to happen. You have no idea how ridiculous it looks -- a priest teaching us about the foundations of Christianity while at the same time committing serial murders (yes, for a Free Software activist, I consider distributing non-free software the same as drug dealing or a crime of similar magnitude).
I'll still continue to licence my manuals under GNU FDL, a free licence, acknowledged as free by the majority of the Free Community.
Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:35:29 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It can't be proved because it's not true, which is another reason that amendment shouldn't win. Others use those options, such as http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/about-lic=
ense.html
Thanks for these links, I wasn't aware of their existence. I consider this one as an abuse of the GFDL -- the invariant sections should contain information that the author considers *important*. In this case the author thinks that he's very important, so I won't use his manual.
The relationship of the author to the topic is named in the FDL as one of the suitable topics for a Secondary section, so I don't see how it's abusing the FDL. He thinks describing himself is important. FSF thinks the GNU Manifesto is important. So be it.
I hope you now agree that Anton Zinoviev's amendment was supported by some false claims, even if you still think it should have won.
A more serious flaw is the title "Secure programming for Linux". Obviously he thinks that Linux is an operating system, which is a delusion.
I consider it a common mistake more than a delusion, but amen.
[...] Fortunately only a few people (the DDs that voted for it) have such perverted logic. If you think that the GNU Manifesto is adware, I can only say that there is a huge precipice between us.
I don't think the GNU Manifesto is adware. I think putting an unmodifiable GNU Manifesto into a manual debases the manifesto by making it a cheap advert and makes the manual adware.
If you think that you can impose your (the project's) view to other distributions to make that decision more legitimate, it's not going to happen.
I don't think that. All I do is explain my view, trying to find peace and not leave misleading statements about debian.
You have no idea how ridiculous it looks -- a priest teaching us about the foundations of Christianity while at the same time committing serial murders (yes, for a Free Software activist, I consider distributing non-free software the same as drug dealing or a crime of similar magnitude).
Interesting analogy. Apart from the murders, some FSF fans seem to think FSF is Pope Leo X, with nothing to learn about their subject: the debian project "when sober will change his mind". If that continues, I think this difference of approaches is about as likely to resolve as the main Christian church split.
Always sad IMO to liken free software to religion, though.
I'll still continue to licence my manuals under GNU FDL, a free licence, acknowledged as free by the majority of the Free Community.
When did the majority acknowledge FDL as free?
FSF thinks the GNU Manifesto is important. So be it.
I'm really curious now. FSF Europe considers its web pages (they are verbatim only just like the GNU Manifesto) as important as the FSF considers the GNU Manifesto important. Is FSF Europe as evil according to you as the FSF (considering the amount of attacks you have done against both the FSF and the GNU project, I can only assume that you consider them evil)? Do those who support FSF Europe go into the same class as thinking that the FSF is `Pope Leo X'?
|| On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:21:39 +0100 || MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
mr> (FSFE seemed better, though, with accounts online at mr> http://www.fsfeurope.org/about/funds/funds.en.html although a mr> little out-of-date now?)
FYI: Since FSFE grew quite a bit over the past years, we've done a relatively fundamental office overhaul, including moving our distribution and bookkeeping offices from Essen to Düsseldorf.
This also comes with a redesign of the bookkeeping structures, which has unfortunately delayed the 2005 numbers -- but they should come online soon (once we have received all the paperwork back from the tax consultant).
Regards, Georg
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
has unfortunately delayed the 2005 numbers -- but they should come online soon (once we have received all the paperwork back from the tax consultant).
This `glasnost' is very important and I shall thank you and the FSFE for providing it.
Dear MJ,
|| On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:16:29 +0200 || "Georg C. F. Greve" greve@fsfeurope.org wrote:
gg> This also comes with a redesign of the bookkeeping structures, gg> which has unfortunately delayed the 2005 numbers -- but they gg> should come online soon (once we have received all the paperwork gg> back from the tax consultant).
It took a little longer than I had hoped, but the numbers for 2005 now went online at
http://fsfeurope.org/about/funds/2005.en.html
So now the information should be complete for the past years, and we'll try to put the 2006 numbers online more quickly.
The delay is partially owed to the startup of the Freedom Task Force, which was a lot of work and received priority -- we hope everyone agrees with that priorisation.
I'd like to take the opportunity to also thank everyone who has supported us in the past with their participation and input, their work as a volunteer and also financially. Without that support, FSFE could not do as much as it does today, and we hope you will continue to make that amount of work possible.
Regards, Georg
Thank you to FSFE for publishing this. Can a balance line be added, please? Will the assets sheet (or whatever it is called for you) be added at some future date when they are only historical?
Regards,
Please attribute quotes in public messages.
Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org
Debian/SPI/ftpmasters are legally responsible for whatever is put into non-free.
Debian - no. SPI - sometimes. ftpmasters - sometimes.
That is like saying that those who violate a copyright license are only somtimes liable for copyright violations.
It's more like knowing basic legal principles and that only those who violate a copyright license are liable for it: 1. Debian is an operating system. It is not legally responsible. 2. SPI is a corporation and is legally responsible for some actions of some debian developers. However, not all. 3. ftpmasters are people and legally responsible for their actions. However, they don't upload everything to non-free, nor review it all.
As previously posted, visit the debian-legal discussion for info.
One does not get more people using free software by saying: Here, have some non-free software as well.
Indeed. I think that's part of why it's not on the distribution CDs. That it isn't part of the CD's is more because it would require a bunch of extra CD's.
Where did you get that idea? The main reason is that 'The official CDs may freely be used, copied and sold by anyone anywhere in the world. Packages of the "non-free" category have restrictions that conflict with this, so these packages are not placed on the official CDs.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/CD/faq/#nonfree
However, you don't let people know that something is non-free software by never mentioning its non-free-ness and you never free software by ignoring it.
That is why one speaks of non-free software in general and why it is bad, and not recommending it like Debian does. [...]
The packages that make up Debian MUST NOT recommend or depend upon non-free software (this is part of debian-policy s2.2.1). Saying otherwise is lying, plain and simple.
Instead, in later years, we've seen FSFers recommend other distributions which had mixed non-free software into their CDs.
The FSF has never done any such thing. If a piece of non-free software was in a GNU/Linux distribution that the FSF recommended, it got promotly removed. Everyone can make errors, but claiming that the FSF recommended non-free software is simply false.
FSF did it. Maybe in error, but it has done such a thing. When debian finds non-free software in the distribution, it is promptly removed. No difference, but a double standard.
Debian takes some crap for being clear and honest in its labelling.
Sorry, that is simply wrong. You say that Debian is 100% free, well, clearly it isn't. Debian distributes and promotes non-free software. It is as simple as that. That you then tell everyone that a square is a sphere is quite depressing.
What is simple and easy to see is that these repeated lies about debian have no basis in fact and no credible evidence for them is ever presented. It's argument by wild assertions: sling much mud and try to make some stick. It's so sad to see FSF advocates attacking a friendly project. Will they do the same if GBN names and shames non-free software supporters in a similar style?
Regards,
The packages that make up Debian MUST NOT recommend or depend upon non-free software (this is part of debian-policy s2.2.1). Saying otherwise is lying, plain and simple.
Now you are really deluding yourself. There are lots of packages that recommend and depend on non-free software in Debian, namley you have the whole non-free repository, and then you have contrib which is meant for software that depends on non-free software. Then you have packages in main that either depend or recommend non-free packages.
I'll give you examples even, first thing that I found: krusader, clamav, file-roller, amavisd-new in main suggests lha from non-free.
Before you start calling me a liar, I suggest you stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed you.
When debian finds non-free software in the distribution, it is promptly removed. No difference, but a double standard.
No, it gets put into another place, called non-free. It doesn't get removed. Non-free is part of Debian. You redefining that it isn't just so you can feel good about it is just sad.
I'm heartily sick of this. I think I'm going to stop replying after the email below, but the third paragraph warrants a reply. I think this has shown what GBN-pragmatism is up against, sadly.
Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org
The packages that make up Debian MUST NOT recommend or depend upon non-free software (this is part of debian-policy s2.2.1). Saying otherwise is lying, plain and simple.
Now you are really deluding yourself. There are lots of packages that recommend and depend on non-free software in Debian, namley you have the whole non-free repository, and then you have contrib which is meant for software that depends on non-free software. Then you have packages in main that either depend or recommend non-free packages.
non-free and contrib are not part of Debian. Any packages in Debian which depend or recommend non-free are seriously buggy and will be fixed or removed.
I'll give you examples even, first thing that I found: krusader, clamav, file-roller, amavisd-new in main suggests lha from non-free.
None of that list depend on or recommend lha at this time. See footnote 1 for what they do depend on and recommend.
Before you start calling me a liar, I suggest you stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed you.
How about I don't BECAUSE THEN I WOULD PROBABLY DIE SOONER. None of my drugs are mindbenders. Are yours? Seems like it! I am really disappointed that anyone on this list was insane enough to write that. It is this "you disagree, so go harm yourself" style of argument that gives FSF fans a bad name.
It is a lie that packages in Debian which depend on or recommend non-free, apart from bugs. If one doesn't want to be called a liar, one should not lie and defame friendly projects like that. You can try to make sure you're not lying by checking facts before sending messages. See whether what you're sending has any basis in reality, or is directly contradicted by it.
When debian finds non-free software in the distribution, it is promptly removed. No difference, but a double standard.
No, it gets put into another place, called non-free. It doesn't get removed. Non-free is part of Debian. You redefining that it isn't just so you can feel good about it is just sad.
Lie. I've not redefined it and it is removed from debian. Again, no evidence that debian was redefined. I remember one attempt to redefine it to be the project rather than the product, but that justly failed.
Previously, many debian developers were quite relaxed about people using Debian to mean the project, the machines or the developers, as well as the operating system. I think this sort of nonsense shows that was probably a mistake. It's damn messy putting this toothpaste back in the tube, and some FSF fans squeezing every chance they get is a big problem. Why don't they do something useful, like tell FSF to stop recommending "Konqueror, IE" for viewing on http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/ ?
I guess this means that I should strongly support a cautious approach to which firms or products get labelled as GBN-approved, as I think some FSF fans are pretty unforgiving.
Best wishes,
non-free and contrib are not part of Debian. Any packages in Debian which depend or recommend non-free are seriously buggy and will be fixed or removed.
Debian distributes non-free and contrib. They are part of Debian. If Debian fixes programs that recommend or recommend non-free software then Debian should take action to removing non-free and contrib. Debian has not done so, so Debian still recommends and supports non-free software.
Before you start calling me a liar, I suggest you stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed you.
How about I don't BECAUSE THEN I WOULD PROBABLY DIE SOONER. None of my drugs are mindbenders. Are yours? Seems like it! I am really disappointed that anyone on this list was insane enough to write that. It is this "you disagree, so go harm yourself" style of argument that gives FSF fans a bad name.
Look, it is you who resorted to calling me a liar, a FSFphile, and what not, if you can't handle a polite comment about taking drugs, then you seriously do need to stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed to you. Yelling, being childish, calling people names sure don't help to make your point.
1. apt-cache show krusader clamav file-roller amavisd-new | grep -E 'Package|Version|Depends|Recommends'
From /var/lib/dpkg/avaiable:
Package: krusader Priority: optional Section: kde Installed-Size: 6804 Maintainer: Angel Ramos seamus@debian.org Architecture: i386 Version: 1.70.0-1 .... Suggests: kedit, konsole, kmail, krename, xxdiff, kdiff3, arj, bzip2, cpio, gzip, lha, rar, rpm, unace, unarj, unrar, unzip, zip, kdebase-kio-plugins
Package: clamav Priority: optional Section: utils Installed-Size: 208 Maintainer: Stephen Gran sgran@debian.org Architecture: i386 Version: 0.88.2-1 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libclamav1 (>= 0.88.2), zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.1), clamav-freshclam | clamav-data Recommends: arj, unzoo Suggests: unrar (>= 3.0-1), lha, clamav-docs
Package: file-roller Priority: optional Section: gnome Installed-Size: 3710 Maintainer: Clément Stenac zorglub@debian.org Architecture: i386 Version: 2.14.3-1 ... Recommends: sharutils, lzop, rpm, arj, p7zip, mkisofs Suggests: lha, unrar
Package: amavisd-new Priority: extra Section: mail Installed-Size: 1520 Maintainer: Brian May bam@debian.org Architecture: all Version: 1:2.4.1-1 .... Suggests: spamassassin (>= 3.1.0a), clamav, clamav-daemon, lha, arj, unrar, zoo, nomarch, cpio, lzop, cabextract, apt-listchanges (>= 2.35), libnet-ldap-perl (>= 1:0.32), libauthen-sasl-perl, libdbi-perl (>= 1.43)
Apologies to most readers. Far too many mails yesterday. Only one or two today and I'll collect any false claims about debian into a digest again tomorrow if needed.
Will anyone collect the main discussion points?
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
Look, it is you who resorted to calling me a liar, a FSFphile, and what not, if you can't handle a polite comment about taking drugs, then you seriously do need to stop taking whatever drugs your doctor subscribed to you.
I view this repeated instruction to stop essential medication as wishing harm upon me and entirely beneath contempt. People who use such tactics should be excluded from the discussion.
FSFphile was not directed at ams@gnu.
Yelling, being childish, calling people names sure don't help to make your point.
Trying to confuse an operating system with a project, and Suggests with Recommends or Depends are both childish. Telling others not to mention non-free software while advertising oneself for work as a Windows user seems hypocritical: http://www.update.uu.se/~ams/resume.html
Now, as to the other emails, One Big Rebuttal:
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:51:30 +0200 (CEST) 20060627185130.E845644007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [yavor@doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
You forgot non-free. Which is part of Debian, and which Debian promotes usage of. There Sun Java is included. Can you explain how Debian advances free software by including a non-free version of Java?
It does not include one.
non-free is not part of debian, nor does debian promote it: 'works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:55:29 +0200 (CEST) 20060627215529.B9AFA44007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor@doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
Please read http://www.fsf.org about the campaigns about freeing many common tools that are non-free today, Java, Flash are prominent examples. Debian has never taken such a stance, it has instead resorted to recommending something that is non-free.
As previously explained, Debian does not recommend anything that is non-free. It has taken similar stances and you can see the work done by its members at places like http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/ and http://wiki.debian.org/Java/MoveToMain
You have the tools to write any free software replacement, you simply choose not to since you do not care about freedom and instead resort to using non-free software. The same goes for Debian.
"We will never make [Debian] require the use of a non-free component." -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:02:34 +0200 (CEST) 20060627220234.60B7E44007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: Defining Free Software Business
mpg123 is free software, patent encumbered yes. But free software. I
Not the version of mpg123 in the ututo sources archive: "If you intend to use this software as a significant part of business (for-profit) activities, you have to contact the author first." (from its COPYING)
use Ututo, can you point me where these nvidious drivers are? I cannot find them.
Go to http://www.ututo.org and click "Sources" in the centre column then [DOWNLOAD] and scroll down a bit.
If you use ututo, can you tell us what packages are in it?
And it is quite funny that you are only able to find one example of what is a simple mistake if it exists [...]
I only had a quick look.
I didn't find any GNU/Hurd commitment.
Why is this even relevant? [...]
It was relevant to my previous comment, which was: I didn't find a commitment by any of them as strong as debian's. No talk of the future and no commitment to Hurd. Debian has both.
Please try to read the thread before replying. It would help to reduce the number of useless questions and conclude these discussions instead of sprouting trees.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:43:25 +0200 (CEST) 20060627224325.CDC2E44007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor@doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
Debian does not care about freedom since it accepts non-free software as a solution. [...]
Debian doesn't care, nor does it accept it. It's an operating system. "It's a machine, Scroter. It doesn't get pissed off. It doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes... it just runs programs!" (from the film Short Circuit)
The Debian project cares about freedom so much that free software is central in its foundation documents (just as I hope it is in the FSF's foundation documents but I didn't find them online).
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:23:32 +0200 (CEST) 20060627232332.A81A344007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor@doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
Neither do you decide the position of Debian, AFAIK.
Indeed, and that should be clear from every .sig, which links to an explanation of my roles. I think I'm giving a more honest representation of its position, though.
Since Debian acknolwedges that it supports non-free software ("as a service for its users") it is pointless for you to go about claiming things that are simply not true.
That quote appears to have been made up.
I've never claimed Debian doesn't support non-free software, but so does GNU. It doesn't include it, nor depend upon it, nor recommend it.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:36:00 +0200 (CEST) 20060627233600.72D0844008@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: Defining Free Software Business
Just because some document states this and that doesn't change what the reality is, and it is that Debian supports non-free software, and provides it to its users, and has no intention of removing it.
Yes, Debian, GNU and Linux all support non-free software. All may provide it to its users, if suitably configured. Software tends not to have intentions, so I guess that's correct. Debian includes vrms to help users remember to keep trying to remove legacy non-free software from their installation.
I don't use Debian, nor do I recommend it. I recommend and use 100% free software GNU/Linux systems. I see no point in me trying to help a project that is so anti-(FSF/free software/free documentation/GNU)
You could always shut up and stop bashing something you don't seem to know much about. You need not hurt if you won't help.
Debian is not anti-FSF or anti-GNU and is pro-free-software. There is no agreed meaning of "free documentation" yet, but I guess it acted against FSF's adware "free documentation".
as Debian since there are already better alternatives that are 100% OK, like Ututo.
"A year later, the 2006 release of Ututo-e is more polished, especially in its desktop and selection of administration tools, but its English version still falls below the standard of leading distributions such as Debian [...]" -- https://www.ututo.org/www/modules/news/news.php?id=88
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:27:25 +0200 (CEST) 20060627232725.C576B44007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: Defining Free Software Business
http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/intro.en.html also says: "The release date is coordinated to appear simultaneously with Linux-Magazin." It's obvious there was assistance.
A wonderful, now you simply change your argumentation. There is a huge difference between linking to a site that happens to do something remotley related, and distributing, and supporting non-free software.
As most people will remember, that thread started with the claim "Debian Project is a proprietary software vendor" and I pointed out that the GNU project recently assisted projects more proprietary-vendor-like than debian.
Please try to read the thread before replying. It would help to cut down the number of useless questions and conclude these discussions instead of sprouting trees.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:39:20 +0200 (CEST) 20060627233920.E0F1444007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: Defining Free Software Business
Come on - show us the molested gerbils!
Can't you resort to anything better than this, Mark J. Ray?
I thought a bit of humour while asking for evidence would be funny. By the way, it is rude to mangle people's names.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:43:03 +0200 (CEST) 20060627234303.CEC3144007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: Defining Free Software Business
Debian doesn't include non-free software.
So which is it? Debian doesn't support and distribute non-free? Or does it?
Debian doesn't include non-free software, but will support and distribute it if you issue the commands to make it.
I'm not sure why it isn't recommended by the GNU project.
Because it _includes and supports_ non-free software. It is really that simple.
Is that an official GNU project position? It's whack. Debian doesn't include non-free software and GNU supports non-free software as much as Debian.
Then please explain non-free which are part of those systems, and part of the Debian project. That you say that it isn't doesn't make it true, it clearly is.
There should be no non-free in Debian. That you say that it is doesn't make it true, either. You showed no evidence. I did.
You said your self so in the first paragraph of this message, but later contradicted yourself.
There was no contradiction, despite the editing and misdirection.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:06:19 +0200 (CEST) 20060628000619.43F1544008@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: Defining Free Software Business
'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
Thanks, so once and for all the issue of Debian recommending and supporting non-free software is put to a rest. It does so, and it is intentional.
Only a madman could conclude that from that quote and the policy previously cited clearly disproves it.
The addition of Sun Java to Debian has not been condoned. Another wild accusation without evidence.
Obviously it was condoned, it was added. [...]
Sun Java has not been added to Debian.
I expect GNU does host non-free software somewhere, but I don't know whether ftp.microsoft.com runs GNU, so I don't see the relevance of that.
Where? Where does the GNU project host non-free software? I have asked you now several times, please show me where the GNU project hosts non-free software.
I never claimed that the GNU project hosts non-free software. I claim that GNU (the software) does host non-free software somewhere. There is a difference between project and product.
[...] So you are saying that the SC is violating the Debian policies or the other way around?
Neither.
Anywhere where non-free software for GNU is run. Odd question.
Non-free software for GNU? What kind of software is that? Can you show concrete examples?
Not current ones. I don't use non-free software. I understand that Sun's Java software will run on GNU.
The CD's are a method to distribute parts of Debian. You quoted the
That too.
SC: 'We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these ...' Clearly, non-free software is part of Debian. You cannot dispute it, you are just trying to weasle your way around by redefining things as you see fit.
Cute trim of "The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian [...]" but it doesn't make that false claim correct.
I'd go on an equal rampage if the FSF started doing the same.
I somewhat doubt it, but I hope we never find out.
Why do you doubt it? Why are you on a constant basis trying to start throwing mud at me? I'm frankly sick and tired of it! Stop it!
I doubt it because you seem increasingly irrational to me. No mud. I was sick and tired of being given fatal directions, but you refused to stop that. Totally unreasonable.
I view this repeated instruction to stop essential medication as wishing harm upon me and entirely beneath contempt. People who use such tactics should be excluded from the discussion.
Your tactis are far worse, using my CV as some kind of way of starting yet more personal attack towards me.
Trying to confuse an operating system with a project, and Suggests with Recommends or Depends are both childish. Telling others not to mention non-free software while advertising oneself for work as a Windows user seems hypocritical: http://www.update.uu.se/~ams/resume.html
I am not advertising any non-free software in there, please get a idea what a CV contains. I expect an apology from you for resorting to such insulting means of starting to use my resume against me. It is simply not acceptable.
It does not include one.
It does so. You have quoted the relevant parts:
'works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system' -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
_Debian_ has created in _their_ _archives_ non-free areas for users. This is clearly supporting non-free software, clearly it is giving space for non-free software. That they weasle out with `these areas are not part of the Debian system' is irrelevant.
Because it _includes and supports_ non-free software. It is really that simple.
Is that an official GNU project position? It's whack. Debian doesn't include non-free software and GNU supports non-free software as much as Debian
"We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works" Where does GNU support non-free software in this manner?
I claim that GNU (the software) does host non-free software somewhere. There is a difference between project and product.
GNU is a operating system, and is hosted on the GNU project machines (ftp.gnu.org, savannah.gnu.org). Where does the GNU system "host" non-free software exactly? You have claimed this several times, with no single example.
I pointed out that the GNU project recently assisted projects more proprietary-vendor-like than debian.
Which projects are these?
I understand that Sun's Java software will run on GNU.
Maybe it can, maybe it cannot. But the GNU system and project do not use it, distribute it, nor support it. Compare this to what Debian does, which supports its usage, distributes it and uses it.
Your baseless attacks are boring. You have refused to answer any of the claims of what the GNU project/system host for non-free software. You have resorted on several occasions to personal attacks, and this time you simply went to far and started quoting my CV. If anyone should be excluded from this list it is you.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:19 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Your baseless attacks are boring.
Your repeating over and over the same statement is not going to make others change their minds. You have stated your opinion as did others in this thread.
Please stop this thread now or you will be banned from the list with any other that will keep replying.
Thank you for using self control from now on. /stef
Please stop this thread now or you will be banned from the list with any other that will keep replying.
Thank you for using self control from now on.
Are you speaking on the behalf of FSF Europe? Is it a policy to use these types of threats? Does FSF Europe condone using personal information about people in attempts to throw mud at other members of this list? What are the policies for this list that decide who gets censored for what? Where are they written?
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 21:40 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Are you speaking on the behalf of FSF Europe?
yes
Is it a policy to use these types of threats?
not at all. And we really feel bad for being forced to revert to such measure.
What are the policies for this list that decide who gets censored for what? Where are they written?
There is no written policy. Some people in the past 2 days have passed the border of a reasonable discussion. The arguments are going in circle and have been going in circle for 2 days now. The discussion is on a dead end and it must be stopped for respect of the other subscribers.
Yesterday I have asked to all participants to this thread[1]
Please stop this thread now or you will be banned from the list with any other that will keep replying.
Thank you for using self control from now on.
Nobody wants to ban anybody, but we will do it if forced.
Regards Stef
[1] That was a generic remark, I was not refering to ams only. I apologise for my poor wording.
Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org asked:
Why we have to make a distinction based on the medium of distribution?
1. A: You don't, but the CDs contain only the operating system, not the various other things also held on the ftp server which some seem unable to ignore or compare like-for-like.
Why Debian Project gladly distributes proprietary software on the Internet, but feels shy to distribute it burned on CD's?
2. A: The project sorrowfully distributes it on the Internet because it acknowledges that some users still use it. It is proud not to put it on the CDs because it is not part of debian and not required for use of debian. Maybe my opinion only, but I don't know anyone who is glad or shy about it.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Your tactis are far worse, using my CV as some kind of way of starting yet more personal attack towards me. [...]
3. Note: I disagree. I view showing that even ams@gnu lists proprietary software sometimes as a much nicer tactic than repeatedly instructing me not to take vital medication.
It does not include one.
It does so. [...]
4. Comment: Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction. (from The Argument Sketch from "Monty Python's Previous Record")
_Debian_ has created in _their_ _archives_ non-free areas for users.
^^^^^^ ^^^^^ 5. Note: Debian is singular. This noun and pronoun do not agree. That is why the argument doesn't work, based on a misunderstanding.
This is clearly supporting non-free software, clearly it is giving space for non-free software. That they weasle out with `these areas are not part of the Debian system' is irrelevant.
6. Note: Picking and choosing which parts of a text to believe is not a rational argument.
Because it _includes and supports_ non-free software. It is really that simple.
Is that an official GNU project position? It's whack. Debian doesn't include non-free software and GNU supports non-free software as much as Debian
"We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works" Where does GNU support non-free software in this manner?
7. A: GNU is an operating system. One can run non-free software on it. So, it supports non-free software. Just as Debian does. Unsurprising, as Debian is based on GNU.
8. Note: no answer whether that is an official GNU project position.
I claim that GNU (the software) does host non-free software somewhere. There is a difference between project and product.
GNU is a operating system, and is hosted on the GNU project machines (ftp.gnu.org, savannah.gnu.org). Where does the GNU system "host" non-free software exactly? [...]
9. A: The GNU operating system appears to host www.vmware.com, for example.
I pointed out that the GNU project recently assisted projects more proprietary-vendor-like than debian.
Which projects are these?
10. A: Linux-Magazin, for example.
I understand that Sun's Java software will run on GNU.
Maybe it can, maybe it cannot. But the GNU system and project do not use it, distribute it, nor support it. Compare this to what Debian does, which supports its usage, distributes it and uses it.
See 7 above.
Your baseless attacks are boring. [...]
11. Note: So are repeated challenges of others to provide evidence and examples, while never providing evidence or examples for allegations.
You have refused to answer any of the claims of what the GNU project/system host for non-free software.
See 7 and 9 above.
12. Note: TTBOMK, I never claimed the GNU project hosts non-free software (other than its manuals perhaps). I think that's mainly an artefact that few GNU FTP mirrors are in the gnu.org domain, while debian tries to give lots of its mirrors debian.org addresses. Certainly many GNU FTP mirrors host non-free software.
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:37:07 +0200 (CEST)
As Debian (the operating system) is part of Debian (the project), [...]
13. Note: Operating systems are not debian project members.
If Debian (the operating system) and Debian (the project [...] ) were two completley sperate entities, then Debian (the operating system) would be surley l`isted on http://www.gnu.org/links/.
14. Q: What evidence is there that Debian would be listed by FSF if non-free was removed?
15. Note: During the last vote on removing non-free from the debian ftp network, we didn't get an answer on this.
[...] but others wish to continue (if they don't wish to continue it, then they shouldn't reply).
16. Note: some do not wish it to continue, but do not want FSFE's discussion list to continue as a misinformation source.
Hope that explains,
Your tactis are far worse, using my CV as some kind of way of starting yet more personal attack towards me. [...]
3. Note: I disagree. I view showing that even ams@gnu lists proprietary software sometimes as a much nicer tactic than repeatedly instructing me not to take vital medication.
There is a difference between `noting', and distributing. I still expect an apology.
You are on purpose trying to muddle up words so that they fit your little world. My CV does not provide any links to non-free software, it does not distribute any non-free software. The Debian project hosts, supports, and distributes non-free software with their Debian operating system.
"We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works" Where does GNU support non-free software in this manner?
7. A: GNU is an operating system. One can run non-free software on it. So, it supports non-free software.
The logic is faulty. One can kill people with knifes, so all people holding knifes are killers. The statement is false.
The Debian project hosts and supports non-free software usage for its operting system. The GNU project does no such thing, and will never do any such thing for the GNU system. So, no, GNU does not support non-free software.
9. A: The GNU operating system appears to host www.vmware.com, for example.
They don't, they use a variant of it most probobly GNU/Linux.
Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org asked: > Why we have to make a distinction based on the medium of distribution?
1. A: You don't, but the CDs contain only the operating system, not the various other things also held on the ftp server which some seem unable to ignore or compare like-for-like.
You didn't answered my question. Let me rephrase it like this: Why Debian Project distributes only the operating system without proprietary softwre on the CDs, but distributes the operating system plus proprietary software on the Internet? How Debian Project distinguish its users (whether to ship them proprietary software or not) based on the medium of distribution?
If those users on the Internet "deserve" (sic!) proprietary software, then why the users of the CDs does not "deserve" it?
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:59:56 +0100, Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org wrote:
Kaloian Doganov kaloian@doganov.org asked:
Why we have to make a distinction based on the medium of distribution?
- A: You don't, but the CDs contain only the operating system,
not the various other things also held on the ftp server which some seem unable to ignore or compare like-for-like.
You didn't answered my question. Let me rephrase it like this: Why Debian Project distributes only the operating system without proprietary softwre on the CDs, but distributes the operating system plus proprietary software on the Internet? How Debian Project distinguish its users (whether to ship them proprietary software or not) based on the medium of distribution?
If those users on the Internet "deserve" (sic!) proprietary software, then why the users of the CDs does not "deserve" it?
Because the license restrictions on the non-free software might not allow redistribution on CD:
http://www.uk.debian.org/CD/faq/#nonfree "The official CDs may freely be used, copied and sold by anyone anywhere in the world. Packages of the "non-free" category have restrictions that conflict with this, so these packages are not placed on the official CDs."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If you have a business that supports non-free software then users will go to that business to get that support. It would be better if the business only supported a _way_to_move_ from non-free software to free software for users, and clearly saying that it does not condone of non-free software.
Hi Alfred
I do believe you hit a nail on the head here. Your conception of allowing businesses to support a _way_to_move_ to Free Software from non-free software is very interesting. This way a business could offer to inherit a non-free customer and transition them to free software. It's a very nice concept for the provision of integration services.
A couple of thoughts come to mind: (A) How long a transition would be permitted? A small customer might install GNU/Linux and be happy, but a large enterprise would require several years of dual-support as systems are phased out and training is provided. (B) Would partial transitions be a supported activity? A customer might wish to get OpenOffice.org and Mozilla tools without ditching their Windows boxes. Would a GBN member be able to support this? Would the GBN member - by supporting Free Software tools on non-free operating systems - be doing good? (C) How can the exact line in the sand be drawn between supporting a _way_to_move_ to Free Software from non-free software and actually supporting non-free software?
I think long transitions would need to be supported to allow for enterprise adoption. Well, that's assuming we want GBN businesses to engage with the enterprise market.
I think partial transitions are a good idea. If people are introduced to the strengths of Free Software in their deployment environment I believe they are more likely to fully adopt in the future. Of course, I acknowledge that this type of transition is open to abuse or misrepresentation.
Drawing a line in the sand between transitions to Free Software and merely providing support for non-free software is difficult. However, I would suggest that if there is a road-map for adoption agreed it constitutes a fair method of indicating intended transition.
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@opendawn.com m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire) w: www.opendawn.com - --- OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc