Defining Free Software Business
mjr at phonecoop.coop
Tue Jun 27 15:25:24 UTC 2006
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams at 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 at 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
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."
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
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,
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
More information about the Discussion