Hi Oron!
On Sunday 04 Oct 2009 10:57:35 Oron Peled wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 בOctober 2009 00:42:39 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Saturday 03 Oct 2009 22:03:26 Oron Peled wrote:
> > > Shlomi, have you noticed you are the only one so far
> > > that consistently cross post to several mailing lists?
> >
> > Yes, I'm sorry about that. I replied to an old email in my inbox after I
> > cleaned it up today, and hit reply-all. I'll try to avoid cross-posting
> > in the future.
>
> That's what you said the last time. We'll see...
>
Yes.
> > Nevertheless, I think that while distributors should keep the core
> > distribution free, they should be allowed to keep non-free software
> > packages that they consider important enough in separate "non-free"
> > repositories, without that making them less free.
>
> They are entitled to bundle non-free software (the mechanism isn't
> relevant) but calling them free operating systems is misleading.
>
Well, here is where I disagree with you. If the core operating system is free,
then I don't see why having a repository of non-free packages should make it
any less free. In Mandriva and Debian, the installer does not configure the
non-free packages by default and does not encourage you to set them, but they
are there in case you need them. (E.g: flash plugin, non-free video codecs,
etc.). You can be a free software saint if you want, but you have the choice
to do something else.
Would you argue that my system is not free because I can do that: (tested.).
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
shlomi:~$ cat proprietary-test.c
/*
* "Hello proprietary world!" program.
*
* Copyright by Shlomi Fish, 2009. All rights reserved under the Microsoft
* Windows Vista Home Basic EULA.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("%s\n", "Hello proprietary world!");
return 0;
}
shlomi:~$ gcc -o prop-world ./proprietary-test.c
shlomi:~$ ./pro
progs/ prop-world
shlomi:~$ ./prop-world
Hello proprietary world!
shlomi:~$
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
> > I don't see why allowing people to conveniently install not-entirely-free
> > software that they need (after they were made aware of the implications)
> > will make it less free.
>
> If you don't see why bundling non-free software makes something *less* free
> you need new spectacles.
They are not bundling it. They are making it available in separate
repositories as separate packages. Even if you configure the "non-free"
repository, it won't install anything on your computer by default.
While you can argue that distributions like Linux Mint, which contain some
proprietary drivers and software, are not 100% free, you cannot say the same
about distributions whose default install and main and contrib (in Mandriva
speak) repositories are free of such proprietary licensed code.
>
> > It's not as if the distributor encourages using it - it's
> > just part of giving a complete user-experience. Mandriva, Gentoo, Fedora,
> > Debian, Ubuntu, etc. are complete operating systems, and they should be
> > as comprehensive as possible.
>
> I can only speak about the distribution I use. Point to a single package
> with a non-free license in Fedora and I'll open the removal bug-report
> for you.
Well, as other people noted, it is not entirely agreed upon what is considered
free and non-free. RMS has no problem with games containing art under licences
that do not comply with the Free Software Definition, as long as their engines
are free software. On the other hand, Debian has problems with it. Other
distributions don't.
Debian also argues that there shouldn't be proprietary firmwares (e.g: for USB
devices) in the kernel sources, while other distributions and the Linux kernel
developers themselves don't seem to mind too much. I should note that a lot of
hardware in your computer has or has had firmware, micro-code, etc. under non-
free licences, which it loads from EEPROM, etc.
>
> Point to any official Fedora documentation/web-page with a URL of non-free
> repositories and I'll make sure it's gone.
>
Well there's always http://www.fedorafaq.org/ - first hit for "fedora faq",
but still unofficial.
In any case, I don't see why we should have purity of documentation. This
reminds me of the grokster case:
http://lwn.net/Articles/141998/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Instead, the court's decision focuses on whether or not the company intends to
promote infringement, or benefit from infringement. The decision points out
that Grokster and StreamCast "each took active steps to encourage
infringement." So, merely having substantial non-infringing uses is not
enough. According to the Supreme Court's decision, companies can be found
liable if they actively promote the technology or take "other affirmative
steps to foster infringement." What comprises an "affirmative step" is open to
debate, and will no doubt be seen quite differently by the entertainment
industry and the technology industry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is despite the fact that in the Beta Max case, the manufacturers of Beta
Max cassettes, may have also encouraged infringement.
This is more like censorship rather than freedom. I'm not saying it's a wrong
policy, just that it might make you "purely-free-by-policy" rather than just
plain "open-source".
> Obviously you are free (pun intended) to add any non-free software or
> repositories to any distribution including Fedora -- but in that case
> you chose to put your hands in the shackles.
>
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
What does "Zionism" mean? - http://shlom.in/def-zionism
Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice.
_______________________________________________
Discussions mailing list
[email protected]
http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
