Re: software distribution criteria -- The Debian case

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> John Darrington wrote:
> > [...] It's OK to mention an antagonist
> > organisation in a discussion paper where you also state the reasons
> > why that organisation is considered unethical, especially if that
> > organisation already has a high profile.  But it would be
> > counter-productive, even irresponsible, to give free publicity to such an
> > organisation.
>
> Making this less abstract: is mentioning non-free software OK if you
> also state that the software is non-free/unethical, especially if that
> software already has a high profile?  Or is it necessary to state the
> reasons why it is non-free software each time it is mentioned?
>
> I ask this because I think we now have both nearly all the reasons
> (due to research done during the non-free removal votes and subsequent
> package evaluations) and the technical capability (due to debtags) to
> state the reasons why a piece of non-free software tracked by debian
> is non-free, every time it is mentioned by debian web sites and debian
> package management tools.  Filling in the gaps and connecting those
> two data sets (reasons and package data) would not be difficult, but
> I've not really tried to promote doing that because I dislike spending
> time working on non-free software.  If it would make FS supporters
> happier with debian if it stated the reasons, instead of just
> displaying the big red "non-free" label, I would work on it.

IMHO, you should not spend your time doing that, due to the solution to the 
Debian issue could be just separate debian.org from non-free.org

Read the last RMS' email: 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnuherds-app-dev/2007-10/msg00048.html


> > Not if that publicity is designed to publicise the non-free nature
> > of it.  Notice that the FSF and sometimes GNU announces and explains why
> > software is non-free-software, like in the "Java trap".
> >
> > In general, I agree.  But FSF only mentions these things in the
> > context I've described above.  It would be totally contrary if the FSF
> > said these things, and then linked to Java-trapped projects which it's
> > possible to use in conjunction with GNU Software.
>
> So is linking also a problem?  Why?  Not linking a project is not
> usually a significant barrier to finding it.  For example, in
> Iceweasel, you just highlight the word, right-click and select "Search
> Web for..." IIRC and you'll find most software fairly easily.

Not linking a project is not usually a significant barrier to finding it, 
however linking it is an active promotional action (free publicity) of such 
non-free package.


P.S.: I lack the time to follow now this conversation due to I am busy adding 
some source code to the project.

Davi