Defining Free Software Business

Sam Liddicott sam at
Tue Jun 27 17:03:35 UTC 2006

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
> 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.


More information about the Discussion mailing list