On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
on its servers.
Anyone, Developer or not, may continue to put as much effort into
non-free software as they want, with the caveat that Debian resources
will not be used to aid them.
Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved?
Here are some, with references:
"golden rule" (GNU Manifesto)
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a
program I must share it with other people who like it."
So how is this a justification for not sharing programs in
non-free with others?
Another section of that document deal with how not sharing source code
is wrong. "The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and
object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used
rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a
person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both
materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so
regardless of whether the law enables him to."
"friendship" (GNU Manifesto)
How is "drop the distribution of non-free and let commercial outfits
take up that distribution" an example of friendship?
When read along with RMS's opinion on needing source code, "marketing
arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat
others as friends."
_Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay)
This is a good argument for replacing non-free software with free
software. I don't see, however, the justification for dropping the
distribution of "non-free" in the absence of such replacements.
"However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is
no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do." is
a good line. Right above it, btw, is the one about "[n]one of the users
can adapt or fix the program" which covers our non-free section
"Proprietary Software" (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software)
This talks about how to use words such as "free" and "non-free" in
a meaningful fashion. This is not a basis for dropping distribution
of non-free.
"The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install
any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the
specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program.
Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a
proprietary program."
Note, however, that in this context it would probably be better
to call our "non-free" software something else more meaningful --
perhaps "semi-free".
Some of non-free is only non-free for, e.g., "no commercial use" in the
license. But a lot of it is non-free because it's quite proprietary: We
have no source, had we source we have no right to create derivative
works, etc.
_Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay)
I see nothing here to justify dropping the distribution of
non-free.
"However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom
to choose any license you want for software you write'. We reject this
because it is really a form of power, not a freedom."
"Even when there is no monopoly, proprietary software harms society. A
choice of masters is not freedom."
Also, if in doubt, I'm sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] will confirm that he is very
much morally opposed to distributing non-free software.
What about BTS?
Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
now.
Gnome is in main.
I'm aware of that. I just used them as an example of someone outside
the project who has managed to set up and use debbugs.
