Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:47:33AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On Nov 02, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> > http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
> > 
> > If you look at the above link, you can see some Totally Free(R)(TM) 
> > distros.
> > 
> > I wanted to ping the list to see if there's substantial support behind 
> > meeting their criteria.
> > 
> > We'd need to do four things:
> > 
> > Change the social contract to eliminate the "we support non-free 
> > software" section.
> > 
> > Eliminate the z-rejected grimoire to be hosted/maintained by a separate 
> > system (no SCM or website mingling, grimoire url to be explicitly added).
> > 
> > Scan the grimoire for stuff that needs moved to the z-rejected section 
> > and do that.  (The FSF keeps a list of GPL-compatible and 
> > non-GPL-compatible-but-free licenses.)
> > 
> > Switch our SCM to something(s) other than perforce for everything.
> > 
> > Who thinks this is worth it?  Who thinks it's not worth it?
> > 
> > Seth
> > 
> > P.S.  I favor becoming as Free(R)(TM) as possible.  I will do what the 
> > group desires, but I think it's something we should consider, at least.
> 
> While I think it is absolutely worth it to be as free as in speech as
> possible, I don't support allowing the FSF/GPL to set our definition of
> "free".  

That's already in our social contract.  We explicitly use the FSF 
guidelines instead of the DFSGs.  Not that I think the Social Contract 
is a perfect document (it makes references to non-free software as 
something we support), but I'm just pointing out that you do already 
allow them to set our definition of "free".

> I have no compelling interest in being on their list, and would
> not support changing our social contract to accomodate this or banishing
> z-rejected to "some other server".  There are several packages in
> z-rejected that are free as in speech, just not free as in GPL.

The FSF maintains a list of Free as in speech and not free as in 
GPL-compatible software licenses that would still qualify as totally 
free.  They aren't only suggesting people use their own licenses.

Being on the OSI opensource license-discuss list I see what allows a 
license to qualify as OSI certified.  Tons of licenses are suggested 
that are rejected now because of so-called license non-proliferation and 
don't violate any provision of the rules they keep adding stuff to.

The OSI thus is a horrible measure of license-compliance.  Their masters 
are the few corporations that desire to control license proliferation, 
particularly Intel and RedHat.  And of whom they select leadership, I'm 
personally shocked.  Eric Raymond and Russ Nelson?  I've never seen more 
bigoted people even in the Republican party.  Eric's AIM will be looked 
back upon in history as the naive ramblings of a 
testosterone-and-rifle-crazed lunatic.  Russ hadn't even been in 
leadership that long, but had to resign.  The current guy is the founder 
of cygwin, now at redhat, whose claim to fame is g++ and a posix 
compatibility layer for windows.

I do see a compelling interest in being on their list.  Being on their 
list means you can say the software we distribute is truly free, and I 
wouldn't have to worry about the z-rejected grimoire on my mirror, for 
example, because the licenses might be a bit unkosher.

What bothers me is that our social contract makes a statement that we as 
a group encourage the use of non-free software.  Why?  Flash?  Java?  
There are clear altarnatives to both.  The question of the SCM is really 
the only issue I personally see.  Having z-rejected being hosted and 
managed by a team member that volunteers to help manage it is perfectly 
acceptable to me.  We have tons of developers that explicitly don't 
support z-rejected.  Isn't it a bit disingenuous to advertise that we do 
support it?

Seth

-- 
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Quality Assurance Team Leader & Security Team: Source Mage GNU/linux
Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic http://www.sourcemage.org
Key id FDCEE733 = 5302 B414 64C4 6112 3454  E082 99F0 69DC FDCE E733

Attachment: pgpoasX1f9i7K.pgp
Description: PGP signature