Mike McCarty wrote:
"Social contract" machts nichts here. In fact, for me, the
"social contract" aspect of all Linux distros is a drawback
to them. I don't want to "change the social order" or "be
the downfall of capitalism", or "kill MicroSoft" or any of
the other "social goals" so often associated with Linux. I
just want a cheap and reliable OS to load my apps. Unfortunately,
that means that getting support means wading through sometimes
annoying amounts of "social contract" trash to get to the good
stuff.
Yes, I have. And I just went back and read it again to make sure
that (a) I properly understood it before, and (b) it hasn't changed
since I read it. I stand by what I said.
It has nothing to do with bashing anything else (be it M$ or other
distributions). The key points to me are (my wording):
Umm, you didn't read or you didn't understand what I wrote.
I lumped several things together, but I did not say they
were the same thing. The Debian social contract falls under
the first rubrik "change the social order", since it subscribes
to the FOSS, which goals I do not support.
I'll quote a short piece from the page you put below, which goals
I do not support...
[...]
Now, this does not mean that I think that people who want to do this
are bad. It's just not something I particularly support or want to
participate in. If you want to give your stuff away, that's fine.
But to require others to do so in order to contribute is not fine,
and I'll not contribute, participate, or support such an attempt.
This is a different argument as to what I was replying before. There is
no word of wanting to change the social order in the social contract.
Debian could not provide the stability and security it provides today
without that wording in its licence. Consider someone contributes code,
but requires that it cannot be changed without her/his consent. Then a
security flaw is found in that software. This flaw cannot be remedied
without her/his consent. I find such a provision quite unacceptable.
I'm glad that Debian provides a simple mechanism to use such kind of
software, but also provides simple control to know which software is
free and which not (non-free repository). I sometimes use Adobe reader,
but I know that it will probably never make it in Debian. For my own
pdfs, however, I won't use features that are not supported by free
alternatives. I know that I can rely on future use of software that is
part of Debian.
People with less concern about free and secure software are free to
contribute to other projects.
One of the worst things for freedom of software, IMO, was the
development of the GPL. I do not like, and do not support the GPL,
LGPL, or similar types of license, which Debian *does* support,
promote, and even require contributors to use. The GPL, LGPL, and
similar kinds of license, which Debian supports, defends, promotes,
and requires are an attempt to change the social order.
Again: NO. Anyone can contribute without changing the social order. The
only requirement is to provide an free and open way to fix problems or
to improve on things. If you have problems in having things improved,
you can always look at the M$ market.
With Debian, you are free to use and contribute to software that is
non-free. For the free packages only, however, you can be sure that
problems can and will be fixed, now and in future.
I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer,
because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any
more and all work that was done with that program was more or less lost.
Umm, you never did have that license, then, and you used the software
in an unauthorized manner. In short, you used a pirate copy.
No, I used the licence of my employer (on the computer of my employer);
after I went to a new employer, I couldn't use it any more.
Johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
