rjack wrote: [...] > I suppose you call Richard Stallman and the Free Sofware Foundation a > democracy? The "free" in free software is euphemistic and semantic > gobbledegook. RMS is an absolute dictator -- a mini Stalin -- concerning > supposedly "free" software.
-------- Of hypocrisy and the FSF Submitted by dylanknightrogers on Sun, 2006-12-03 19:38. debian free software fsf gnu linux rms The Free Software Foundation acts as the benevolent force guiding the computer industry. It protects the users of software from the baddies, the list of which very often includes the names Microsoft, Apple, and TiVo. But what happens when the benevolent force transforms into something of a hypocrit? The Free Software Foundation has an official list of Free GNU/Linux distributions. That is, distros that dont include any non-free software in the mainline distribution image or package repositories. With that in mind, the said list is quite selective. The names of the distributions are as follows: - gNewSense - Ututo - Blag - Dynebolic - GNUStep - Musix Something that I found peculiar was that the distributions Debian and Gentoo both have a social contract that ensures the freedom of the distribution. Debian explicitly states on numerous occasions that the system will never require the use of a component that is non-free. Now, for the interesting part. By performing a simple Netcraft check, we can see the FSF servers running what GNU/Linux distro? Debian, of course! If the concept hasnt violated your cortex just yet, I must remind you of this double standard of distribution selection. While Debian remains a free distro in its default substance, the official package repositories include a section with a raft of non-free software in it. I spoke with Richard Stallman about this. He didnt seem to be nearly as disappointed as I was: We did not install any of that non-free software, so it is ok for us to run Debian. But we cannot recommend its servers to the public. Other people might install the non-free software from the site. That sentence seems to be missing something. While Stallman has a good reason to not recommend the Debian servers or condone their actions, he fails to recognize that I can get non-free software anywhere. Just because a piece of non-free software is in my distributions package repository does not mean I am going to install and use it. I could very well go somewhere else and get the non-free software. In fact, requiring a free distribution to exclude proprietary software from their repositores may actually increase the prevalence of the users ability to go somewhere else and grab the non-free software they wish to use. There are many free GNU/Linux distributions out there that need to be recognized, but cannot becuase of their distribution of non-free components in their repositories. This is an interesting debate, and Id like to hear some feedback. In my eyes, Debian remains a free GNU/Linux system. -------- -------- Further Hypocrisies Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-12-06 04:15. Further hypocrisies: The FSF just officially sanctioned GNU Sense as their official distro. It is based on the commercial distro Ubuntu, which has its roots in Debian. I thought I would try GNU Sense after hearing RMS on a talk show, where he was castigating anyone who would use "flash" in their browser. The first thing I tried was to see how well "gnash" was working now. And, since this was an official FSF sanctioned distro, surely installing "GNASH" would be no problem. Guess again! Firefox tried to install flash! Not only that, but I couldn't find gnash anywhere in the GNU Sense repositories. I have communicated with RMS on quite a few occasions. He requires that you run the gauntlet of semantical minutia, and will pounce on any references made that aren't just so. So, is my mention of the fact that the FSF is officially supporting a commercial Debian variant, and even it doesn't offer any alternative to flash, in any way nitpicking? Not when you're playing by RMS's rules it isn't!! -------- -------- Even Further Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-12-06 15:01. Stallman insists that all Linux distributions be called GNU/Linux. However, most distributions have elements that are not GPL and GNU compatible. I would think that he should instead insist that only distributions that meet the full criteria of GNU and GPL compatibility be called GNU/Linux. By including non-free software in his definition this creates a contradiction. It also puts him on shaky legal grounds if someone uses that term GPL and GNU for something that is not free and FSF has not enforced the proper use of their name. Joe Kaplenk -------- Links: http://www.libervis.com/of_hypocrisy_and_the_fsf http://www.libervis.com/of_hypocrisy_and_the_fsf#comment-7657 http://www.libervis.com/of_hypocrisy_and_the_fsf#comment-7666 regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss