On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 04:24 +0300, Osama Khalid wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we > > ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means > > allowing justifying the use of proprietary software. > > 1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do whatever they wish. > 2. GNOME will only host and endorse free software.
Right now, #2 isn't accurate. GNOME will also host open-source software: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. So, clearly, you guys want to change this, that means that i ask(ed) this question: > > Why not open-source software? > I don't think we need to get into the free software vs. open source > debate here. That debate isn't the question here. The question was "why not open-source software?" > The main point where they differ is not whether any given Their main difference isn't the question. > code *on the Internet* is free/open (and that's the important part > here), but whether certain conditions, such as Tivoization, may turn > the code into non-free/closed. Sure, however, why not open-source software? Cheers -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
