On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
> > During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
> > clear there are two completely different notions of "freedom" among
> > us.
> >
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > do whatever we want with it.
>
> I don't think any debian developer seriously holds that opinion.
Neither did I but I was proved wrong. It was insisted many times in
this list that the text of DFSG ("must allow modifications") means
"must allow arbitrary modifications".
> > The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
> >
> > The strong point of the first notion of freedom is that in every
> > person there is a natural desire to be able to do whatever he wants.
> >
> > The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this
> > freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds
> > this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian.
>
> The problem with this second notion is that "practical purposes" is
> ill-defined.
What do you mean by "ill-defined"?
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
