On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free software > into its repositories.
I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an "unwritten policy", I'd encourage the Board to write it down in clear and explicit terms and get it agreed to by the membership, since there's not necessarily any actual common understanding of what such a policy "says" or means, if that's the case. > "Open source" doesn't imply any reason or policy for rejecting > proprietary software... I'm afraid I really have to disagree here: "open source software" is software which is made available under a license which satisfies the Open Source Definition which can be found at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Clause 1 of that definition states, in part, that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." Clause 2 states that "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." Clause 3 states, in part, that "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." I could go on, but I think this demonstrates that there's no actual basis for your claim, Ciaran, unless you're using the term "proprietary" in some unusual sense. If you can give me a concrete example of software which is proprietary, in the usual sense of the term, while still being available under a valid open source license, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. > ...GNOME is a project that doesn't develop non-free software... In your preferred terminology. I'd say is doesn't develop "non-open-source software" in mine. We'd both be correct. I would never suggest that your view was invalid, should be unrepresented, or that you weren't entirely entitled to hold it. I'm only asking the same. As I've said--and I think there's general agreement--there's no consensus on which term is "correct" among the membership. Plenty of GNOME members use the term "open source", myself included. Why should their choice of terminology be denigrated in a statement that purports to represent them as well as you? I'm a member, you're a member, Philip's a member, and RMS is a member. We have differing views here, and the statement should treat all parties fairly. I'm not asking that the term "free software" not be used, in spite of _my_ not using it, nor do I believe is Philip. I'm simply asking that, since the terminology _is_ debatable--and there has been no shortage of debates about it, none of them terribly productive, and certainly none of them decisive--a statement which represents us all not "settle the matter" by fiat. > A quick comment on the survey. I think the main flaw is that it tests > for word-for-word agreement with one person (RMS). A somewhat less-quick response: I had intended the survey to test the positions of the "free software movement" as expressed by the FSF on the one hand, versus the actual attitudes of the community at large on the other. I have to believe that RMS' statements on proprietary software can be taken as being representative of, and authoritative with respect to, that organization. If that's not the case, I'd appreciate some concrete details of where I've missed the actual views of the FSF, and how they differ from what I understand them to be. _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
