On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:55:42PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:35:23PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Sadly, you seem to have missed the point of Free Software altogether, > > which can be stated simply as: preventing anyone from having exclusive > > control of the software so that everyone can benefit.
> (3) Debian does not have a monopoly of the word "free". > I suggest that if you do not want to be offensive > you should say "Debian-free" or "free in the Debian sense". Given that the term Free Software was coined by Richard Stallman, you can use his definition if you like: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Or you can use the DFSG, if that better meets your needs. I never claimed to have a monopoly on the word "free". I used the term "Free Software", which is much more specific and has a specific meaning to the community in which the term originated. To claim that my viewpoint is Debian-specific would be facile. > (4) There is no need for Debian or anyone else to modify the LaTeX kernel, > since you can make any changes you want in a package (.sty file). > So the whole discussion seems to me entirely theological. Consider it theological if you will; the fact remains that eligibility for inclusion in Debian is determined by a set of principles that are embodied in the DFSG. That this discussion is being entertained at all surely indicates that at least someone with a say in the matter believes freeness -- or at least widespread distribution -- is important to LaTeX. > (5) You speak a lot about Linux, > but your approach seems to me far from that promoted by Linus Torvalds. > In fact Torvalds and Knuth seem to me very similar in their viewpoints, > as perhaps one might expect. Linux is licensed under the GPL, which alone speaks volumes; and, as has already been pointed out, Linus is not the only one who has a say in the fate of that kernel: he's not even the only one who releases kernels. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpwSKfxYZIEM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
