[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Grove) wrote on 12.01.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tangent: {
> BTW, on debian.org, there's an essay that says that they are currently
> "using" the linux kernel until a totally GNU one is created. I've been
> doing some homework while watching these posts. (Which is also why I now
> understand why I could never completely back the FSF/GNU Project... they's
> a bit lopsided in the cranial cavity...) I'll give you a link if you want
> but it's right off the main page. And you're right, I don't think that
> many Debian users realize this, or share this fanaticism.
> }
Link, please. I suspect you'll find it's somewhere on gnu.org, not on
debian.org, and thus does not describe any goals of Debian.
And yes, there is a direct link to gnu.org from http://www.debian.org/,
not surprisingly considering how much GNU software there is in Debian.
Or maybe you mean the sentence abouthow there is work on Debian on HURD.
If you actually *read* that sentence, you'll see it mentions the HURD in
the context of "kernel independent" and "other kernels", *not* as a plan
of moving away from Linux.
On http://www.debian.org/, follow the "Social Contract" link to find the
definitive stance of Debian on free software and licenses. The DFSG on
that page is what Eric later created the "Open Software" definition from.
Note that it explicitely lists the Artistic License as a typical free
license. (The other two examples given are GPL and BSD.) Note also that
article 1 of the DFSG says it must be possible to sell the software, so
it's hardly possible to accuse Debian of being unfriendly to commercial
interests.
After reading that, I'd like to see an explanation of how one could
consider Debian people to have a "fanatical" agenda.
Oh, and Debian is *not* part of the FSF GNU project. That was true for
some time in the beginning, but isn't true today, and part of the reason
are the philosophical differences between the Debian developers and the
FSF. (Incidentally, Ian, the guy who created Debian with funding from the
FSF, is currently creating a business based partly on a commercial
distribution based on Debian. Which the Debian project has absolutely no
problems with.)
(Well, some more extreme Debian people seem to argue every once in a while
that the GPL isn't really free enough, but somehow that doesn't seem to
have all that much effect.)
Another thing - rms is known for demanding policy changes from Debian that
many Debian developers think are not very reasonable. And which seem to
have a hard time being actually implemented.
But there *is* the vrms package ...
Package: vrms
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 25
Maintainer: Bill Geddes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Architecture: all
Version: 1.6
Filename: dists/potato/main/binary-all/admin/vrms_1.6.deb
Size: 5150
MD5sum: 6373f2f60ff2896564c4b5aafd9994a0
Description: Virtual Richard M. Stallman
The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a
Debian GNU/Linux system, and report all of the packages from the non-free
tree which are currently installed.
.
Future versions of vrms will include an option to also display text from the
public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of each of the
installed non-free packages might cause moral issues for some in the Free
Software community. This functionality is not yet included.
MfG Kai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
