On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote: > > The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project > generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining "Free > Software". > > The following is an enumeration of freedoms intended to apply to > non-public-domain works in general.
I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free documentation and not about free works. It is questionable whether we have to require these freedoms from works that are not software, nor documentation. For our Debian distribution the difference is not much important as we distribute only software and documentation. Nevertheless there is a great philosophical difference. Do we start promoting philosophical ideas that are not directly related to our own work? I doubt there will be any benefit if we start doing this. > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, > including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's > own changes to Works written by others. Yes, we should require this from all software in Debian. But I don't think it is desirable to add this to the definition of free software (and free documentation) because of this: * If some software spies me and its license disallows me to remove the bad code in it, then this won't be a free software, because I am not allowed to modify and improve it. * If the software spies me, but its license permits me to remove the bad code, then this will be bad software, but free software. I am allowed to improve it. * Debian has its guidelines rather than its definition of free software. I don't think we have any interest in more confrontation with FSF and initiate a third movement in our community (as OSI already did). Some people in FSF are too sensitive about definitions. Anton Zinoviev
