Public SourceMage Discussion List

[John Harding <johnh AT kuberaconsulting.com>]

Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:

>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.
>  
>
I completely agree with emrys view, though I be a mere user. ;)