Re: [libreplanet-discuss] review respect of code of conduct on Manchester FAQ

[Thomas Harding]

On 02/08/2012 01:56, Thomas Harding wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 00:12, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> > > I can't bear this flamewar FSF vs Debian
> >
> >
> > It is not a flamewar....at least from my part. I am not an FSF member 
> > either.
> >
> > Perhaps my words would be more clearly understandable as:
> > "...Debian does not have an FSF compilant policy for freedom yet."
(sorry for dual post, and my bad English)

I has been excessive in my response,

What I disagree on is fact "Debian main" is not enlisted as 
FSF-compliant because of /alternatives repositories of Debian who are 
contrib and non-free/.

And about Linux kernel blobs, they has been dropped out from main for a 
long now, and this has been largely discussed into Debian because of 
peculiarity (they are loaded into the hardware and not directly used by 
kernel), but finally they did the right, drop them from main !
And about install, loading them is let on user decision, with convenient 
warnings...

While some enlisted distros finally offers non-free repos too, the only 
difference is : it is not /as easy as/ Debian to use non free software 
with these distro. But finnally, *you can*.

neither OSI or "Open Source" terms are used in the core Debian terms, 
but effectively "Free Software"
<http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines>
<http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html>
(OSI is ~ a Debian consequence, not part)

more, in case of misinterpretation of a licence by an author, they drop :

<quote>For a concrete example, the PINE mail client version 3.91 had an 
MIT-style license, which is generally considered free. The copyright 
holder told us they wished to interpret the license text in a somewhat 
counterintuitive fashion: the license allows modification and 
distribution, but the copyright holder said they interpreted this as 
allowing modification, and allowing distribution of unmodified copies, 
but as not allowing distribution of modified copies. We respected their 
wishes, considered the software non-free, and removed it from 
Debian.</quote>

While IANAL, I for long fully agree and promote Free Software on FSF 
basis for eras (1997).

Sadly, I am unable to use a full free software system, because of 
"silent rules changes" : (1) my Epson scanner which I buy because I 
didn't check in deep (some part is free software, but not the SANE 
module) -- remaining my stylus photo EX which specs has been fully 
disclosed, greatly improving fs printing in 1999, and (2) undiscloseds 
changes on "Flash" which makes Gnash mostly unusable, hopefully this 
will die shortly :)

Upcomings Linux kernel blobs are are real problem too, and it's 
unsolvable because out of scope of GPLv2/Kernel.

IMHO, what we need is:

  * a "Free Software Compliant" "label", maybe FSF owned, given to full 
disclosed specs material, with high quality pilots "proof of concept" 
and FS firmware if even (they have also :). If we don't have that soon, 
it will be the end of what have began with a famous "printer problem" :)

  * a strong W3/IETF/whatever task force, where patents are a constant 
risk.

  * a "patents" task force, to avoid patents on 'trivial things' which 
are given by patents corporations because of their incompetence or their 
greed (states delagates to companies/consortiums) : four-color 
separation, LZW algorithm, Fraunhoffer algorithm, patents on effects and 
not method... (yes, I'm aware of software patents campain : not enough : 
it have to be a hard and discouraging way to obtain a patent, then 
effects will follows)

  * a "bill lobbying task force" to counter-balance large companies 
lobbyists, encourage states/unions to law on compatibility and 
specifications opening, and especially to recognise mathematical and 
biological as "not able to be patented" because they are *natural 
things*; also against DRM which geopardise not even immediately but also 
on human memory our culture.


TH.