Martin's point makes a lot of sense. However, I still don't see the problem with hosting non-free software in the forge project.
Personally, I think the notion that non-free software is somehow bad is ludicrous. Freedom means allowing different points of view and different philosophies to coexist (hopefully peacefully). I have long been a proponent of the free (and not just $) software community, I make contributions when and where I am able, but the discussion has taken on religious overtones - play my way or don't play at all and in a very strident tone. I find this unfortunate and decidedly not free. Ah well, I have said my piece (peacefully) and will bow out of this discussion. Bob -- Robert T. Short, Ph.D. PhaseLocked Systems Martin Helm wrote: > Am 18.11.2011 18:51, schrieb Robert T. Short: > >> I understand that. If it isn't available from the website, at the >> very least it creates an obstacle to using it, and therefore is a >> suppression of freedom. A nonfree (sub)repository is a perfect >> place to give users access to stuff that may be useful even though >> it doesn't meet the standards of "freedom". I really can't see that >> there is any harm whatever. >> >> Michele Martone wrote: >> >>> On 20111117@13:44, Robert T. Short wrote: >>> >>> >>>> If I understand correctly, the idea here is that including a >>>> wrapper that allows a user to access non-free software is >>>> somehow a bad thing. However, if you don't allow the wrapper >>>> users are NOT able to access the non-free software. This seems >>>> to infringe on the user's right to choose and therefore is a >>>> suppression of freedom. >>>> >>>> Just a thought. >>>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> >>> Bob, they were discussing whether to host the wrapper in the >>> octave-forge repositories; not whether to allow or deny the wrapper >>> use. >>> > May I add a point of view about that as a simple user of octave and > octave-forge: > I think it is perfectly reasonable if a company adds a wrapper to a free > software even if their own software is non-free, but in my opinion such > a wrapper package should be hosted on the site of the vendor of the > non-free software. > There are several reasons why I think this, where one reason is simply a > practical point of view and I will leave out my philosophical > considerations here: > Such a package is an addon to the proprietary software and as such makes > no sense without it, so as a customer I would expect to find it where > the software I buy comes from and not from anywhere else. Beside that, > if I find somewhere on some webpage such a wrapper software it is not > directly clear that it is something produced by the original vendor from > which I buy my proprietary software. > > > From that I think it is better for both, the project which hosts and > provides free software due to more philosophical reasons (to which I > agree in most cases) as well as the vendor of the proprietary software > due to practical reasons. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
