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: The "free software community" does not include Linus



On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> The big problem with this definition is that it leaves out I guess more
> than 80% of the linux people. Linus himself would not qualify for being a
> member of this community since I am certain he does not agree to your
> very dogmatic view of free-software. I pretty much identify with the
> statement of Linus gives below. 

What does "pretty much" mean hear? I see his statements as supporting all
of the aspects of free software that Debian does, yet you seem to read it
as stating the relative "unimportance" of the "freeness" of software. Your
"ability" to "read" your own interpretation from what other folks have
said make a reasonable discussion with you very difficult.

>                                 Bruce, really I think we should get this
> dogmatic I-need-to-force-the-GPL-on-all-people streak out of the Debian.
> 
Again, your interpretation seems to be "off target". 

	A. The GPL is an "example" of the software license we require.
	B. Debian IS a "Free Software" Distribution.

If we drop our fundamental ideals we will truely cease to be Debian, and
asside from our superior packaging system, would be just another RedHat.

> I dont think Debian can compete in the long run with other distribution if
> Debian continues to antagonize other projects. I would rather see Debian
> contribute in a positive way (that does not mean abandon the free software
> aim for the core distribution). More tolerance for others and cooperation 
> and less anti-this and anti-that would do much for the success of the
> project as a whole.

It is not clear that our standing up for our ideals is "antagonizing"
other projects.

I agree that Bruce's original reaction to the KDE disk was not
appropriate. I also understand the dilema he was in, with the announcement
of this disk.

Christoph, it is because Debian produces a completely "Free" distribution,
that the KDE folks (actually it isn't they who are creating this disk, if
I understand correctly), and anyone else, for that matter, can use our
distribution to support any software they desire, free or proprietary or
anywhere in between!

> 
> http://www.twics.com/~tlug/linus.html:
> 
> HY: You have become one of the champions of free software. However, unlike
>        Richard Stallman, we don't see you commenting much on what free
>        software should be and what it means to all of us. Are you
>        interested in these "promote free software" aspects at all, or
>        are you more interested in the software itself? 
> 
> Linus: I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works,
>        works. When it comes to software, I _much_ prefer free software,
>        because I have very seldom seen a program that
>        has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available
>        can be a life-saver. 
> 
>        So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd
>        stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I _know_ it's going to
>        stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases). 
> 
>        However, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to commercial software.
>        Commercial software development has some advantages too - the
>        money-making aspects introduces some new incentives that aren't
>        there for most free software. And those incentives often
>        make for a more polished product. 
> 
>        For example, I've been very happy indeed with the commercial Linux
>        CD-ROM vendors linux Red Hat. What commercialism has brought into
>        Linux has been the incentive to make  a good distribution that is
>        easy to use and that has all the packaging issues worked out -
>        essentially everything is easily available. 
> 
While the above is an intersting quote, I read it to say that Linus
supports the Free Software ideal, as he gives all the correct reasons why
it is more desirable (better). It seems to me that Linus includes himself
in the Free Softare Community. I certainly do!

In any case, nothing you have said, or quoted here, speaks to Bruce's
statements below. If anything they support his position.

> On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> 
> > > So the "free software community" is the community that adheres to the
> > > contract? This is self-referential and really does not clarify the
> > > situation.
> > 
> > A Talmudic argument? Let's see if I can work this out. (If you don't like
> > talmudic arguments, tune out here.)
> > 
> > 1. Debian's definition of the set of Free Software is all software which
> >    conforms to the conditions of the DFSG.
> > 
> > 2. The Free Software Community as that set of entities who produce Free
> >    Software.
> > 
> > 3. Thus, the DFSG implicitly defines the Free Software Community for
> >    Debian.
> > 
> > 4. In Debian's Social Contract, we pledge that we are, and will remain,
> >    good members of the Free Software Community.
> > 
> > 5. Thus, Debian's Social Contract, taken together with the DFSG, is the
> >    work of a member of the Free Software Community defining that community.
> > 
> > Now, I understand that you don't like that the above is self-referential,
> > however I don't think it's unreasonable for a community to define itself.
> > Such a definition is necessarily self-referential, as are all statements
> > of the form "I tell you who we are".
> > 
> > > If you mean by that all those who truly "believe" in the GPL gospel then I
> > > am and maybe half of the rest of the Linux world are outside of the
> > > free software community.
> > 
> > Given the above, the set of Free Software contains the set of GPL-ed software.
> > So, the question is not whether you are a believer in the GPL gospel, but
> > whether you are a producer of Free Software as defined by the DGPL, and thus
> > a member of the Free Software Community.
> > 
> > You're the one with the religeous training. Where are the flaws in this?
> > 

No answer?

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .