The line drawn between Free and non-Free
[I this post I try to _demonstrate_ the need of DFSG inside Debian;
please, read it all before starting replying line by line :-) ]
The problem behind the recent debate around non-DFSG, isn't, IMHO, about
_where_ we draw the line that discriminate Free Software, but is about
the _why_ we draw that line _there_.
In fact we have said nothing about the _reasons_ of our decision.
I think that we need to explain this clearly (and put it on the web
site), without indulging in aethical concerns (that can be
misinterpreted as religious dogmas), but limiting our reasoning to
technical facts.
As I have already said before, it's my conviction that there is a
precise reason behind the success of Linux and of Debian, and behind the
fact that this success was gained faster and wider than those of GNU or
BSD, for example.
That reason is in the _method_[1] used by Linus first and by Debian
later. In that famous interview to Linus[2], he firmly states the
undebatable fact that the _wright_ decision was to GPL the kernel from
the very first moment. What he miss to say[3] is that the wide volunteer
partecipation of hundreds of expert developers was due to this decision
_and_ (means _plus_) his way to un-organize this partecipation. I mean
un-organized compared to the way software development is usually
organized, even by FSF; it's not casual that the boost on Debian's
success came exactly after the divorce from FSF, and our choose of an
open development method.
The great difference between the open method and (for example) the
method used by FSF, is that in the latter the decision to GPL the
software is a _political_ decision, applied to the software (before or
after his creation isn't important).
The same software could be later put under a commercial license, without
any influence to the existence of the software itself, and RMS has a
great burden in explaining why this is not a _good_ thing (aethically
speaking), and/or asking the written transfer of copyright to FSF to
avoid later changes.
In the open method, the decision to GPL the software is a fundamental
part of its development, must be taken as earlier as possible and, after
a very short period, become irrevocable.
This is because the inclusion of non-trivial parts of software in the
product produce a huge list of owners of the intellettual property whose
right to copyright their work can be easily satisfyed _only_ using GPL,
and the permanent right to change the license terms is in the hand of a
crowd instead of a single, and thus non-practically possible.
A later inclusion of non-free parts in such product, prohibited by the
GPL, but possible when the decision come from the copyright holder, is
in this case no-more pratically possible (you would need written consent
from each and all the contributors, and it is easy to say that someone
would say no). Because of that, developers in an open development team
must be very careful to avoid inclusion of non-free software in the
product. Thus they have to draw a firm line on what is free software and
what is not, and have _all_ contributors agree (better early than
later).[4]
Debian is an open development team which product is the debian
distrubution, that is copyrighted as a collection and licensed under
GPL. Inclusion of parts (packages) that would violate the GPL is not
possible.[5]
Thus is demonstrated the technical need of such a drawn line, and why
the decision of _where_ the line must be drawn is in respect of the
modificability and redistribuitability of the parts to be incuded, and
_NOT_ on their freedom of use by users.
Can someone with better skills in English literature write those ideas
in a polished form?
Bruce?, Ian?
Thank you for the patience in reading this,
Fabrizio
--
[1] See: http://www.ccil.org/~esr/writings/cathedral.html
[2] See: http://www.twics.com/~tlug/linus.html
[3] because of modesty, or maybe because he had not noticed that
(I don't know what he thinks about this): it's perfectly possible,
for example Columbus died still thinking he has reached India.
[4] This is the reason why I say that Trolltech behaviour on "free"
software is a real fraud, and that they are "stoling" from
developers: in fact they are saying that they "want" the developers
use GPL for their work (using the benefits of the open development
model), but they still keep firmly in their hands part of the
rights to distribute the software that others wrote, getting money
from the voluteer work of others while denying the same to the real
authors (highly immoral: it's a theft IMO).
[5] Note that due to this I think that ?? (Manoj?) is wright in
thinking that the DFSG is too tolerant.
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: