Defining Free Software Business (please read this before believing anything about debian from ams at gnu)

[MJ Ray]

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 at 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 at 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 at Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: [yavor at 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 at Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor at 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 at 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 at Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor at 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 at Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: The crux;; Re: [yavor at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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.
-- 
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct