Op 06-08-12 02:12, Bryan Baldwin schreef: > With one exception (below) I can't find where we disagree.
Nice to hear ;-) > I think the > commitment to being a free distribution is more important then whether > any particular distribution is free right now or not. I could very well > be that if Debian met all my points it might still not be considered > free by nature of how well integrated contrib and nonfree are. This > isn't a problem for free distributions that have never maintained any > nonfree software. Not sure. E.g. Trisquel could create a "trisquel-nonfree.org" what would make it very easy for people to install closed source software. > Here is where we disagree. > > On 08/06/2012 01:04 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: >> I am sure you would like to have a free bios, a free router, free >> (cell)phones, a free TV and a free DVD player. Do you have them >> allready? In the case not: if you really wanted to be free, you >> would have removed all those non-free devices. > > That isn't intellectually honest. Its an intolerable bit of casuistry > that I do not like the stink of. This is why: > > * None of what I've said, or what anyone has said, has been an attack on > the choices of users. GNU+Linux development is not intended to govern > what individual people choose to take and use, only provide free > choices for cosideration. People who value freedom may try to convince > people that freedom is important. We do not tell them what to do. I agree with that. > * I do not distribute or promote nonfree software or devices. > Technological freedom movements have nothing whatsoever to do with > auditing the contents of people's homes. It has everything to do with > making it possible for people to convey knowledge to one another in > freedom respecting ways. It does have everything to do critically > analyzing what developers are distributing to users. I sell devices with mostly free software. Sometimes I have to use compromises, e.g. for firmware. And I like to have good sources for that. > Debian is not simply choosing to have nonfree software for personal > use, they are publicly distributing nonfree software. I'm not saying > they should be stopped if that's what they want to do. I'm saying that > no one who says its free should be taken seriously. Its intellectually > insulting when something insists that I am confused when I don't. I agree with you here. In my opinion Debian should not distribute nonfree software. But I don't have problems when Debian would work together with people or an organization who does, e.g. by giving access to a build farm. I don't think we really disagree. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl _______________________________________________ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
