Re: [DS-discuss] Re: A nice guide to Debian GNU/Linux

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> hi
>  
[I was hoping this discussion to be offlist; not disturb the flow of the 
list too much.
Anyone bored by it please voice any concern]

>  
>
> > I am speaking from the experiences of mingling with
> > Debian developers as 
> > late as last month 
> >    
>
> me too. i do read archives dating long back to the
> present stuff in order to understand whats going on
> there
>
>
>  
>
> <http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2003/prog/abstract-MMichlmayr-1.shtml>
>  
>
> > where Martin M. was proclaiming the purity of
> > Debian's freedom.
> >
> > I like the Debian and its anarchic community and all
> > but my impressions 
> > of them and their scope is that they have a much
> > narrow viewpoint and 
> > ambitions... than say...FSF's.
> >    
>
> i dont see it that way. debian is no more narrow than
> FSF as i perceive it.  of course you are entitled to
> your opinions and i am not complaining at all.
Let me explain with an example of why I stick to this opinion.

It seems that round one of the battle against legislature for software 
patents in the EU [swpat.ffii.org] has been won.
.... This does not appear to be officially announced as the 'baddies' 
seem to be licking their wounds as the scheduled debate for Sept 1st has 
been withdrawn :-).
Now, a certain RMS (for FSF) was very active on campaigning against this 
misled EU legislature. I am sure that most Debian folk would do the same 
but the way the interests of these two orgs diverge, it is not possible 
for any effective representations from Debian in this matter.

FSF and their attitude to software render them a wider *viewpoint* on 
many  software related issues hence the concept of 'copyleft' is more 
ambitious.
eg: Wikipedia is covered by GFDL. 

>  
>
> > I am very sure about the problems with GFDL is due
> > to their over zealous 
> > approach.
> >    
To be clear I was referring to the  Debian developers' zeal.

> not at all. the present of provisions for invariant
> sections and cover text creates specific problems
> including the requirement that the manual be kept
> machine readable
>
> for example
>
> i can add a statement as childish as windows sucks or
(whats childish about this? :-)

> linux is the new god or some stuff as invariant to an
> otherwise professional doc.
>
> fdl'ed docs cannot be encryted as per the license due
> to the interpretation of machine readability. read
>  
I do not understand this fully. Guessing that there are requirements for 
machine readable licences (?) ... I wish for a future where more human 
touch is present than a mechanised existence.

> thru the license and you will find the complexity
> overwhelming.
That is lawyers and the highly lucrative software documentation field 
for you.

> there was pointers to many practical problems. i am
> not saying it will affect everyone but that i can and
> debian considers this aspect as non free. 
>
> we can however ignore this stand and continue to use
> fdl docs if it serves our purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> > > for example rms said that he supports linex more
> > >      
> > than
> >    
> >
> > > debian bcoz they dont like to non free software
> > >      
> > unlike
> >    
> >
> > > debian
> > >
> > >      
> > Please send me any references to this if you can
> >
> >    
>
> here. take a look
>
> http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=3DNews&file=3Darticle&sid=3D125
>
>  
The link seems broken :-(

> i am not bashing rms or debian. just pointing out
> there are conflicts and you may choose to form
> opinions reading thru both sides
Of course. Infact this exchange has made me read up more Debian stuff 
which is a good thing especially if stepping forward to help write up 
some docs on the greatest OS I ever knew.

Best regards,

Ramanan