Marco d'Itri wrote: > It is another long-standing Debian tradition to tell non-developers to > STFU when they try to change the meaning of the DFSG.
IMHO, this is not my case, read further. > You can find the details in the last 6 years of the debian-legal@ > archive... If you have mind reading the link that Zack took time to send you, you might have noticed that I have been approved by my DAM, and that I am just waiting for my account creations. But that's not the point. Like Yves-Alexis Perez, I can't help myself to write that I believe you have been quite rude when writing this: > You are not even a Debian developer so please refrain from trying to > re-interpret the DFSG to suite your opinions. I have tried to be as open minded as possible, and asking opinions of others, and I don't think I am re-interpreting the DFSG here. IMHO, the debate is all about how to consider the recaptcha service (eg: a service you connect to, or a remote procedure). I don't think this has anything to do with being a DD or not: users, maintainers and so on also have concerns about freeness, and I strongly believe that this kind of debate shall be open to anyone. Because I took the time to package php-text-captcha, which has been ready for MONTHS, it might also give me a bit more of legitimacy to comment about a PHP module that I refused to work with, because I considered that there was a more free alternative. Have you done such a work to consider what php captcha module should be in Debian? Some made the comparison (like you just did) with IM clients, specific browsers (like youtube clients and others), but I don't believe this applies here. To my opinion, I believe this is a remotely executed procedure, stored on a non-free server that we wont ever control, which makes php-recaptcha a good candidate for contrib. This is a lot more complex debate than what you pretend. The link you have past is just someone expressing his opinion, with sentences starting by "I think". Where exactly did you see that was written in the stone of the DFSG? Also, if I am not mistaking, this discussion is talking about an ICQ client. I already express myself, writing that I don't think this matches the case of php-recaptcha. We are talking about a remote procedure on a software, that has no valid reason to be used as a service, and not embedded on the server that you use. If you believe that there's a valid reason, I welcome you to express yourself about it. Thomas P.S: This is unrelated to the license of the software itself, and to the discussion that has to be technical and about principles we enforce in Debian, but recaptcha.net is using the user's input to digitize content, without being very clear about how this "free work" is being used. Truth is, it's quite obvious that Google is using it for it's online library that it will never share with others. I believe this is evilness, and I am against it. I also don't like at all the way Google managed to dismiss copyrights of many authors, injunctions from many governments, pretending to be above many laws, and so on. Recaptcha is yet-another-tool for this evilness. Having something like a "free as free beer" API, a "free as free speech" software to use the API, but keeping the digitized work for themselves, and keeping the server side code closed, is yet another trap that I *strongly refuse* to dive into. If Debian is not the entity to refuse/complain about it, then who will? Do we really care about software freeness? I hope we (as an entity) still do, and I *know* many of us still do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1e1c0b.5060...@goirand.fr
