Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On Nov 04, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:47:33AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > 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".

We allow them to set our definition for the purposes of the non-z-rejected
grimoires.  As you note, we also in the Social Contract state that we don't
end the story there.  We allow users their choice.

> > 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.

You can s/GPL/FSF/ my statement then, it's still valid.  I don't accept the
FSF's definition of free as the only one, GPL or otherwise.

> <snip OSI rant>

I never said anything about OSI, nor did I mean to.  I don't accept any
organization's prescriptions to define my own software choices.

> 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.

If you don't want to mirror it, don't.

> What bothers me is that our social contract makes a statement that we as 
> a group encourage the use of non-free software.  

No, it does not.  The word 'encourage' is neither explicitly nor implicitly
in there.  It only talks about not limiting user choice.  I think the
phrase that sums it up is: "We will provide the tools for a user to make
their own informed decisions."

> Why?  Flash?  Java? There are clear altarnatives to both.

All of which have their own issues.  Even if they did not, it is not up to
you (or me) to make that decision for our users.  That is one of the core
principles of this distribution.

> The question of the SCM is really the only issue I personally see.

The SCM is certainly a problem.  One could make the argument our use of
perforce violates the SC, since it states that "SMGL will never rely on
non-free software," and requiring it for development certainly seems to
violate at least the spirit of that statement, as well as the letter if we
apply a frank definition of "rely".

> 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?

No, it's disingenuous (and fallacious) to claim we don't really support it
just because some of our developers won't touch it.  We have people that
don't have a problem supporting it, therefore it is supported both in name
and in fact.

Attachment: pgpYEQiKeuuO9.pgp
Description: PGP signature