Nathanael Nerode wrote:
"olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal has proved
better at guaranteeing the FSF's 'four freedoms' in practice than RMS, what
with the GFDL and all.
It's true that I find the GFDL not "ideal" (which in my opinion is
different from non-free) and it is a shame that it has been adopted by
the FSF. However it is not because another person have done a mistake
that it become an excuse to do the same thing. On the last years, Debian
have had a tendency to declare non-free license that are declared free
or open source by everyone else and I think it will lose its credibility
if it continues on this way. Both the FSF and the opensource movement
have understood the difference between non-ideal and non-free license
but Debian apprently did not.
Let's face it: the FSF didn't create a full free-software system. Debian did.
Debian mainly package software done by others. There is few if any
software copyrighted by Debian. To say that Debian "create" an operating
system is greatly exagerated. Although this packaging is important and
make the software more accessible; it is not in my view the most
important thing. I could, with some effort, install Linux from scratch
myself but I would be totally unable to reprogram all the GNU software.
This is true however that FSF leadership can be discussed since there
are many important softwares on a typical GNU/Linux distribution are not
from GNU (xorg, KDE, Linux, etc...).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
