[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] review respect of code of conduct on Mancheste

From: Thomas Harding
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] review respect of code of conduct on Manchester FAQ
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:59:03 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.5) Gecko/20120624 Icedove/10.0.5

On 02/08/2012 01:56, Thomas Harding wrote:
On 02/08/2012 00:12, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
I can't bear this flamewar FSF vs Debian

It is not a least from my part. I am not an FSF member either.

Perhaps my words would be more clearly understandable as:
"...Debian does not have an FSF compilant policy for freedom yet."

(sorry for dual post, and my bad English)

I has been excessive in my response,

What I disagree on is fact "Debian main" is not enlisted as FSF-compliant because of /alternatives repositories of Debian who are contrib and non-free/.

And about Linux kernel blobs, they has been dropped out from main for a long now, and this has been largely discussed into Debian because of peculiarity (they are loaded into the hardware and not directly used by kernel), but finally they did the right, drop them from main ! And about install, loading them is let on user decision, with convenient warnings...

While some enlisted distros finally offers non-free repos too, the only difference is : it is not /as easy as/ Debian to use non free software with these distro. But finnally, *you can*.

neither OSI or "Open Source" terms are used in the core Debian terms, but effectively "Free Software"
(OSI is ~ a Debian consequence, not part)

more, in case of misinterpretation of a licence by an author, they drop :

<quote>For a concrete example, the PINE mail client version 3.91 had an MIT-style license, which is generally considered free. The copyright holder told us they wished to interpret the license text in a somewhat counterintuitive fashion: the license allows modification and distribution, but the copyright holder said they interpreted this as allowing modification, and allowing distribution of unmodified copies, but as not allowing distribution of modified copies. We respected their wishes, considered the software non-free, and removed it from Debian.</quote>

While IANAL, I for long fully agree and promote Free Software on FSF basis for eras (1997).

Sadly, I am unable to use a full free software system, because of "silent rules changes" : (1) my Epson scanner which I buy because I didn't check in deep (some part is free software, but not the SANE module) -- remaining my stylus photo EX which specs has been fully disclosed, greatly improving fs printing in 1999, and (2) undiscloseds changes on "Flash" which makes Gnash mostly unusable, hopefully this will die shortly :)

Upcomings Linux kernel blobs are are real problem too, and it's unsolvable because out of scope of GPLv2/Kernel.

IMHO, what we need is:

* a "Free Software Compliant" "label", maybe FSF owned, given to full disclosed specs material, with high quality pilots "proof of concept" and FS firmware if even (they have also :). If we don't have that soon, it will be the end of what have began with a famous "printer problem" :)

* a strong W3/IETF/whatever task force, where patents are a constant risk.

* a "patents" task force, to avoid patents on 'trivial things' which are given by patents corporations because of their incompetence or their greed (states delagates to companies/consortiums) : four-color separation, LZW algorithm, Fraunhoffer algorithm, patents on effects and not method... (yes, I'm aware of software patents campain : not enough : it have to be a hard and discouraging way to obtain a patent, then effects will follows)

* a "bill lobbying task force" to counter-balance large companies lobbyists, encourage states/unions to law on compatibility and specifications opening, and especially to recognise mathematical and biological as "not able to be patented" because they are *natural things*; also against DRM which geopardise not even immediately but also on human memory our culture.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]