Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are > LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be > developed. > > In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still > wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list. We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier. These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a addons.gnome.org would need to be different: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing : Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. That states "free OR open". Given the context I guess "open" means open source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?) Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user > from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same > time? > > As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from > installing whatever they wish. The question at hand is what we > _suggest_ to users. We should not steer users towards nonfree > programs. > > What counts is whether the addon is free or nonfree. (See the > definition in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) The OSI > has a different criterion, called "open source". It really is different; > not all open source programs are free. In the GNU Project, we don't > follow the OSI; we insist on free programs. But then again, that's the GNU project. GNOME, however, has different guidelines: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. You can see that these guidelines clarify that the license must either be free OR open (BOTH are permitted). I bet this guideline had a good reason to come into existence. So let's stick to it. Whatever GNU's guideline is. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: > Hi! > > > Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the > > user doesn't then distribute the combination? > > Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also > includes the freedom to use proprietary software if someone wants to. I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means allowing justifying the use of proprietary software. Defining an individual's freedom it is up to the individual, not to dogma's nor organizations. Not even the FSF. Let people have either anguish, their choice of adviser or their own responsibility of choice. It's the core of freedom. Software in itself, isn't. Choosing for yourself and for all of mankind what is best ... that could be freedom. > Anyway, a.g.o will obviously only host free software! Why not open-source software? So far, I'm all but convinced that "free software" is "good enough" to be "the only" possible option. Making this "the only" possible option is quite a heavy philosophic requirement. Based on what philosophy is "open source" not good enough? And please take your time and be elaborate. I think that this decision is, by far, heavy enough for philosophy to be put into action. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 03:00 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: > [...] > Why not open-source software? > > So far, I'm all but convinced that "free software" is "good enough" to > be "the only" possible option. Making this "the only" possible option > is > quite a heavy philosophic requirement. Based on what philosophy is > "open > source" not good enough? And please take your time and be elaborate. > > I think that this decision is, by far, heavy enough for philosophy to > be > put into action. GNOME is a Free Software project. That should be enough. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://www.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we > ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means > allowing justifying the use of proprietary software. 1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do whatever they wish. 2. GNOME will only host and endorse free software. > Why not open-source software? I don't think we need to get into the free software vs. open source debate here. The main point where they differ is not whether any given code *on the Internet* is free/open (and that's the important part here), but whether certain conditions, such as Tivoization, may turn the code into non-free/closed. -- Osama Khalid English-to-Arabic translator and programmer. http://osamak.wordpress.com | http://tinyogg.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Philip, It does appear that the inclusion of "open and not free" packages in GNOME is an exception, not rule. You can type the following (or equivalent apt) query on you system and analyze the result: sudo yum info installed "*gnome*x86_64" "*gnome*noarch" | grep -E "Name|License" On my system out of 109 packages 4 combine GPL/LGPL with BSD license, one combines GPL/LGPL with MIT (compiz-gnome). On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:28 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are > > LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be > > developed. > > > > In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still > > wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list. > > We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier. > > These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a > addons.gnome.org would need to be different: > > http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing : > > Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support > open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module > license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel > mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed > standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications > that support closed protocols should also support open > equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at > all possible while still serving their intended purpose. > > That states "free OR open". Given the context I guess "open" means open > source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?) > > > Cheers, > > Philip > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
