The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Definition of "free" (was: New Package: defrag 0.6-1)



Normally, I would never involve myself in this kind of discussion,
but I think that one question is perhaps most important:  Since Debian
is in fact Debian/GNU Linux, then shouldn't we take the term "free" as
it is defined in the GPL?  In the GPL, "free" has absolutely nothing to
do with the monetary cost or value of the software.  IMHO, it has 
everything to do with the rights of the end user of this software.

Syrus.

----------------------------------------------------------
Syrus Nemat-Nasser <syrus@ucsd.edu>    UCSD Physics Dept.


On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Brian C. White wrote:

> > > I disagree!  If it's free of cost and free of usage restrictions, then
> > > why must it go in "non-free"?
> > 
> > It could go to contrib, but it can't go into the main
> > distribution because we can't support it properly.
> 
> I'll agree with that.
> 
> 
> > > I don't think that an author's choice of whether or not to reveal
> > > his/her source is relavent.
> > 
> > Personally, I think it's crucial.
> 
> It may change your trust in the code, but not how free you are to use
> the software.
> 
> 
> > > I don't think "freely modifiable" is a necessary property for software in
> > > the main distribution.
> > 
> > I think it's essential.
> 
> Why?  Source code availablility and source code modifiability are not
> the same thing.  I could easily create a "read-only" copyright.
> 
> 
> > > If you want to get right down to the nitty gritty, the only truely
> > > "free" form of software is public domain.  For all the FSF's high-handed
> > > talk about "free software", I am not free to use their work in any way
> > > I please.
> > 
> > I think you mean "every way", but that doesn't really matter (and
> > my English isn't what it should be, anyway).
> 
> Actually, you are correct.  Pointing out flaws in my English does
> not change what you know I meant, though.
> 
> 
> > For a number of people, the fact that Debian keeps free[1] and
> > other programs separate is a major attraction. I'm one of them.
> 
> While I would prefer to roll it all together, I don't mind keeping
> the separate.  Putting something in "non-free", however, is not
> just keeping it separate.  It's saying "you can't use this without
> cost" (whatever that cost may be).  There is no cost to using
> software just because it didn't come with source code.
> 
>                                           Brian
>                                  ( bcwhite@verisim.com )
>                                              
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Want to get it together?  We can help!  http://www.verisim.com/coordinator/
> 
> --
> Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
> 

--
Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com