On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> You are quite wrong. Proprietary software is non-free, so if all non-free
You ask later in this posting what "bluring" I'm refering to. Well, here
it is.
Prorpietary is a very restrictive term meaning that all rights allowed
under the copyright are being reserved by the author/copyright holder.
I should not need to explicitly mention which companies release sofware
under such licenses. However no such licenses appear in our non-free
archives.
non-free (note the lack of capitalization) is a location on our web/ftp
servers for software that doesn't meet our definition of freedom as
specified in the DFSG.
Your insistance that these two are the same is a bluring of the concepts.
Your insistance that the existance of such a location has anything to do
with commercialism or proprietary licensing befuddles the argument.
I object.
A proprietary license is one that satisfies _none_ of the freedoms we
require for software to be free. Sofware in our non-free archives often
only fail for one single component of freedom that is missing, while all
the other terms of the DFSG have been met. I will not agree that such
software is equivalent to a proprietary license.
Since I was there for the discussion, and you weren't, I don't think you
can tell me I don't know why we did it that way. It was done as a clear
"line in the sand" that defines exactly what levels of freedom Debian
stands for.
> software were to wither and die, we would not have proprietary software.
> This is why there might be a conflict between proprietary interests and the
> removal of non-free.
>
According to the accepted definition there are no proprietary intersts
represented by non-free, so while your comments are potentially true, they
fail to make contact with the issue in question.
> I am unhappy, because I can't see what misdirection you perceive.
Have I made myself any clearer?
> In fact, I don't see what your rant has to do with the distinction I was
> trying to make.
>
I tried to point out that your "distinction" didn't speak to the real
issues, as with most political distinction.
> > The reasons for non-free have nothing to do with our lofty ideals and
> > obvious disdain for anyone who would make money using free sofware or any
> > other kind. (which, by the way, includes my hunble self)
>
> Upon carefully rereading my email you replied to, you might find out
> that actually nodody in this thread is disagreeing with you on this point.
I would caution you to not speak for people whose minds you are unable to
read. I doubt that anything of substance could be said about "actually
nobody in this thread".
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
