[GNUz] Slashdor discussion of php/mysql/gpl

[InfoHelp]

Belated reply, sorry. This stuff's important & has taken time, but was 
never ignored.

Jim Cheetham wrote:

> InfoHelp wrote:
>
>> Nick Rout wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Rik, just a thought, remember your thoughts (and the gnu philosphy)
>>> about free software when you next recommend SuSE - the "usabilty"
>>> features such as easy installation of modems means the distro includes
>>> some non free software :-)
>>
>> And how is any difference playing out in the public behaviour of our 
>> LUG?
>
> Because it was a comment on your own personal beliefs? - promotion of 
> GNU/Linux and SuSE simultaneously are potentially contradictory. 
> However, because of my next answer, you have no clear way out of this.

I don't see this at all. If recommending free software means 
distributing it along with some less-than-free software, why shouldn't 
we? The content is still there - in dilution, admittedly. Best to 
acknowledge the ongoing state of flux for FOSS, and get on with 
promoting it, I say.

>> Are there more GNU-like (GPL'd) distros we should be recommending? Is 
>> that the essential point?
>
> There is no GNU Operating System or distribution.
> The distribution that thinks it's the most GNU-like is "Debian 
> GNU/Linux". It was funded either by FSF or GNU when it started, for 
> goodness sake.
> However, RMS says that this is now non-free, because there are some 
> non-free packages that can be downloaded from the Debian web servers.
>
> Understanding the Debian packaging in more detail is useful to this 
> point :-
>
>> As a service to our users, we also provide packages in separate 
>> sections that can not be included in the main distribution due to 
>> either a restrictive license or legal issues. They include:
>> Contrib
>> Packages in this area are freely licensed by the copyright holder but 
>> depend on other software that is not free.
>> Non-Free
>> Packages in this area have some onerous license condition restricting 
>> use or redistribution of the software.
>> Non-US/Main
>> Packages in this area are free themselves but cannot be exported from 
>> a server in the U.S.
>> Non-US/Non-Free
>> Packages in this area have some onerous license condition restricting 
>> use or redistribution of the software. They cannot be exported from 
>> the U.S. because they are encryption software packages that are not 
>> handled by the export control procedure that is used for the packages 
>> in Main or they cannot be stored on a server in the U.S because they 
>> are encumbered by patent issues.
>>
>> Note that same packages might appear in several distributions, but 
>> with different version numbers.
>
> RMS seems to object to the acknowledgement that some users find 
> non-free software to be something that they want to use. He doesn't 
> say that a GNU operating system should *prevent* people from using 
> non-free software (i.e. by downloading the sources) but does say that 
> Debian should prevent the *easy* use of non-free software. I don't 
> really agree with this position. 

He's just advising a formal position. There's no enforcement behind it. 
RMS is simply outlining a 'purist' route, compromise of which is 
inevitable in the real world. In the meantime, it's the overall drift 
that we're debating, I feel.

What GNU/FSF says to me, is that OSS has a foot in the M$/proprietary 
camp already, & it's a slippery slope. So let's not forget the 
*principles* that made Linux/OSS free in the first place. *FS-GNU makes 
these very clear*, against rewriting history.

> I don't see that CLUG has to favour a free Linux distro over a 
> potentially non-free Linux distro. CLUG is for promoting Linux. 
> Witness the Mandrake CD4 comversations at the moment ...
>
> On the other hand, GNUz should favour a "FSF-free" distro. 

As in "free as defined by FSF", or "FSF-influence-free"?

- very different meanings, opposites it seems.

Do you mean that we should be GNU(extinguisher)z through this list?

> But there isn't one. I'd recommend compromise on Debian, but RMS does 
> not do compromise. At some stage, the world at large must be able to 
> separate RMS's personal opinions from the FSF/GNU positions.

This is always possible, and my guess is RMS would even agree in it.
His Debian position is 'turning a blind eye', though not dumb of voice, 
as I read him - RMS *does* do compromise.

Why such efforts to vilify him? Is it to accelerate the privatisation of 
OSS/Linux community portions?

No wonder the lawyers are keen - much more (private OSS) work!  ;-)

> -jim
> _______________________________________________
> GNUz mailing list
> GNUz@inode.co.nz
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz 

-Rik