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: on the goal of debian

>>>>> "BP" == Bruce Perens <bruce@pixar.com> writes:

    BP: The primary goal of Debian is to provide an
    BP: _entirely_free_software_ distribution. Everything else is
    BP: secondary to that.

Free software distribution which isn't good (I don't say best) is
useless.
Software, which isn't free, is (except of rare exceptions now) useless.

So I don't agree making free software distribution, which isn't good,
does have any sense.  Of course, except of it can be nice hobby, but I
don't think many of us are so boring they can waste their time for such
hobbies.  *IMHO* the quality of the distribution is exactly equally
important as the fact it is free--both _free_ and _good_ must be
presented, otherwise there is something wrong with our goals.

    BP: I think the point is that we would not sacrifice free software
    BP: for quality, even if there was a better kernel, for example,
    BP: that happened to not be free software. We would try to make our
    BP: kernel as good as the non-free one rather than embrace the
    BP: non-free one.

This sounds much better to me than your previous paragraph.

I have still a question to clarify things: If someone decides e.g. to
create free support for Windoze NT kernel inside Debian, does so, places
it in contrib, is it OK?  Is such an activity officially encouraged,
discouraged or it is unimportant to us?

    BP: You are saying here that you have your own agenda which is
    BP: explicitly in conflict with the goals that the developers set
    BP: for the project and ratified in a vote. This is fine, but since
    BP: you are in the minority you should probably not expect us to do
    BP: things your way any time soon. Of course I trust you to not
    BP: violate the project policies, regardless of how you feel.

There are many various reasons why people like free software.  For example:
- Its style of development (possibly main view of RMS).
- Development of free software works better than development of non-free
  software (possibly main view of Linus).
- It can be copied and used free of charge (possibly main view of most
  users of free software).

So my second question is:
a. Is there any problem that Debian is developed by people with
   different views on free software as long as project policies (stated
   in the Social Contract and DFSG) are not violated?
b. Is there any problem with discussing our policies from time to time?

Milan Zamazal

-- 
"Having GNU Emacs is like having a dragon's cave of treasures."
                                                Robert J. Chassell


--
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 .