| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Before this gets out of hand...Before this gets out of hand...Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:37 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development by piman Parent article: Thomas Bushnell is no longer Hurd maintainer I'm on Thomas's side, but lets get our facts straight. The problem is that Thomas represents stuff that contradicts GNU policy. RMS defends the GFDL because it gives users all of the *useful* freedoms they need. The GPL also restricts certain actions, but only non-useful actions. Being a GNU maintainer has very little to do with being a developer. The maintainer is the public representative for a project. Thomas hasn't worked on the Hurd for about two year. Marcus Brinkman is the lead developer.
(Log in to post comments)
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:53 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] I'm seeing Animal Farm played out before my eyes: "useful freedoms," indeed. Is this the one and same Free Software Advocate extraordinaire coriordan whose faithfulness to Freedom leads him to argue passionately against developing Free applications for non-Free Operating Systems? Or has Enderle hijaaed his account and used it to promote the Microsoftian view of Freedom -- that which I think you should have and no more.Please rename the GFDL the GNU Shared Documentation LicenseTM. That way we can clearly distinguish the More Free from the merely free. Unbelieveable.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:26 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I don't think the GFDL is a good license ...and I'm a GNU maintainer, and I haven't been dismissed.But remember that you're only hearing one side of this story. "Useful freedoms" is a subjective term, there can be no single definition, Stallman just does his best. On this issue, I'm not happy with his best, but lets not all point out where the strongman stumbled. There's nothing wrong with Free Software being developed for proprietary operating systems. It's proprietary software for Free operating systems that I have issue with. "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strongman stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,... --Theodore Roosevelt (a web search will find the rest of that quote)
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:36 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] " It's proprietary software for Free operating systems that I have issue with."Why? What are the pros and cons of such a stance?
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:48 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] > but lets not all point out where the strongman stumbled.And why not, sirrah? That seems to be a not unreasonable description of your common attitude when posting here on such topics, IMHO...
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 22:01 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] hmmm, I was trying to highlight the suddenly-righteous *tone* of some people that point out his failings.I didn't want to include the whole Roosevelt quote in my comment, but the intended point was that one mistake doesn't change that he's been busting his ass for twenty years to give us freedom.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:17 UTC (Thu) by bex (guest, #16960) [Link] isn't pointing out errors or sometimes a way to do something better what open source development is about? If no-one bothered to try and make things better then it wouldn't get much better. I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing something out.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 23:57 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (My previous post was meant to be the answer to this question, so I mustn't have been clear again)I agree with what you say. We must point out problems, acknowledge them, think of solutions, implement solutions, etc. But ten people just jumping up and down saying "Ha! see, stallman made a mistake", is no good.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:29 UTC (Thu) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > It's proprietary software for Free operating systems that I have issue with.Please bear in mind that Linux will *never* take the desktop away from Microsoft without proprietary applications. My company makes a proprietary vertical-market application suite that runs on Linux. The crossplatform development environment we're using for our next generation GUI product is commercial and proprietary (and no, changing it is not an option). The vendor of that development environment has just discontinued their Linux port of it due in part to hostility from the Linux community and the unwillingness of the Linux community to work with them to solve the problems they were having. *poof*, our plans to ship our next-generation product on Linux have perforce been abandoned, and we will only be shipping a Windows version. This makes it impossible for us to offer, for example, a Linux-based user workstation with our product, Open Office, Evolution, and Mozilla as an inexpensive option for our clients. This sort of thing makes us *all* poorer.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 3:47 UTC (Thu) by nd (guest, #15578) [Link] > This makes it impossible for us to offer...Rightfully so! Why pollute GNU/Linux with proprietary trash? Don't you > Linux will *never* take the desktop away from Microsoft without proprietary applications Oh, yes, it will. ... as soon as the trash makers like you go out of their miserable business. Good luck with Windows, kiddy.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:28 UTC (Thu) by bex (guest, #16960) [Link] stop being an elitest. I say let people lisence their software as they wish. If you don't want it don't get it. As long as everyone has a choice it should be ok. There are so many opensource developers out there that it's likely you'll end up seeing an open version or clone of the closed source software anyway. Let developers do whatthey want with their work and stop trying to get the world to see it your way.Yes, I think the open source model is much better than closed and I don't use propriety/closed software when I don't have to, but it's nice to have that as my choice and not forced.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:19 UTC (Thu) by argent (guest, #17054) [Link] "Why pollute GNU/Linux with proprietary trash?"Until you're running it on an open source processor built in garage FABs with open source VHDL tools and open source BIOS and... well, until Vernor Vinge's "Ungoverned" future history comes to pass, it's proprietary trash you're running Linux (with or without a GNU userland) on, and it's proprietary trash that's driving the demand that makes fast bitty boxes so cheap that you can afford the luxury of contempt for it. Right now... Right now I'm feeling I've stepped into the middle of Eric Flint's "Belisarius" saga, with Richard Stallman playing the part of Link and/or Great Lady Holi, while the mongrel Romans with their impure blood nibble them to death... After all... right now the most popular even /partly/ open-source desktop operating system is running on that horrible proprietary hardware that Stallman used to bitterly complain about, with a proprietary GUI and API on top... and it's the proprietary GUI and API and the proprietary apps that run on it that sell Mac OS X to most people, not the fact that Darwin is BSD at the core... Mongrel! Impure! Unclean! Oh the horror! Oh the embarassment! All die...
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 0:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Until you're running it on an open source processorThis is the "If I can't be perfect, I won't even try" argument. It's a great excuse to do nothing, for people that are looking for such an excuse. > ... (I can't find a point in the rest of your comment)
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:25 UTC (Fri) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > Why pollute GNU/Linux with proprietary trash?Because there are not good Open Source solutions for all problem domains. >> Linux will *never* take the desktop away from Microsoft So you're saying that a vendor of a proprietary application package who wants very much to be able to provide that package on a Linux desktop is *bad* for Linux on the desktop? When, if we were able to provide our application on a Linux desktop, we would be able to offer a Linux user workstation to our clients as a product, thus increasing the adoption of Linux on the desktop by opening it to a market where it would otherwise not be an option? > Good luck with Windows, kiddy. Sadly we have no other alternative. We *love* Linux and would dearly love to be able to ship our application package on it. We can't. I am just saying that hostility towards proprietary applications that run on Linux is going to hinder adoption of Linux on the desktop. Can you rationally (e.g. without name calling and dogmatic blindness) argue that I am incorrect?
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 22:26 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Can you rationally ... argue that I am incorrect?Of course. Here's the root of your mistake: > ...thus increasing the adoption of Linux... You are starting from the incorrect assumtion that our goal is simple popularity. "adoption of Linux" is not the goal (adoption of GNU/Linux is also not the goal). The goal is to allow people to use a computer in freedom. It's not important which Free Software operating system is the most popular. GNU/Linux is probably our best bet though, because it's freedom is mostly protected with copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. If you can convince your company to release it's software under the GNU GPL, it would be a great contribution. You say that relicensing is not possible? Many great men have done what people previously said was impossible.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 23:54 UTC (Fri) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > You are starting from the incorrect assumtion that our goal> is simple popularity. ... > The goal is to allow people to use a computer in freedom. Granted. Okay, we're not arguing the same argument, then. Pax. It seems nd's meds are a bit off.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 5:03 UTC (Thu) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Oh, I'm "so motivated" to contribute to Your aplication, when I even don't have access to the product, eather because I can't afford to pay the license price or I don't want to sign the NDA or I just don't want to take the risk of being sued because of breaking the NDA or the software company finds some other rediculous excuse for sueing me.I'm a fraid, that You have to own me as a slave, LITERALLY, to have me contribute to your system withought giving anything back. I don't want to be unpolite or unsocial, but please acquaint Yourself with the GNU philosophy, which is found in the GPL. In addition to the free software's philosophy, please try to accept the following sentance: "Business models should HELP THE HUMAN GENERATION TO ENJOY AS GOOD LIFE AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO ENJOY, and therefore: * THE BUSINESS MODELS SHOULD ACCELERATE THE CREATION OF GOOD, INNOVATIVE, TECHNOLOGIES AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO ACCELERATE, * PRODUCE THE KNOWLEDGE AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO PRODUCE, * CONTRIBUTE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE BEST TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH ARE KNOWN TO THE HUMAN GENERATION, AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT KNOLEDGE AND RESOUCES OF THE HUMAN GENERATION PERMIT TO CONTRIBUTE. Now, how do the restrictions on the use of "copying technology", restrictions on the use of "modifying technology" and the restrictions on the use of "distribution technology" comply with the prestated statement??? I guess that the Linux community works for the good of the whole human generation and naturally we don't like the partys, who instead of giving a hand, just consume our work and at the same time try to throw log's int to our spokes.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:12 UTC (Fri) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > Oh, I'm "so motivated" to contribute to Your aplication,We're not asking you (or our clients) to contribute to our product. Many of our clients are not technically capable of contributing to the product - they just want a tool that helps them efficiently and profitably run their businesses, and, indeed, *don't want* to know all the nitty gritty details. We provide this to them. > I'm afraid, that You have to own me as a slave, LITERALLY, to have me I am very familiar with it. I am a kernel contributor (2.0 and 2.2 at least). I believe in it fully, but I also do not believe it is the solution to *all* sitations or the proper license for all possible code. I deeply hope that Linux will be able to take a large portion of the desktop market. But I do not believe that it is possible to do this in a "completely free" environment, except in the simplest of cases. For example, can you recommend to me a good open source U.S. Income Tax package? That's the only reason I still run Windows at home. I believe the hostility to proprietary *applications* is unfounded, and interferes with the adoption of Linux as a desktop environment.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 19:58 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] OK, I'm sorry. May be I overreacted a little, but I still think, that the idea in my previous posting still holds and has a point. Well, actually, to be really honest, my job is also proprietary, closed source, software development. The software is actually a support software for a pretty special hardware and I think, that from innovation's point of view and from the view of considering the client's needs, my employer digs a grave for itself by keeping the software closed and proprietary, BUT, there is one huge advantage of keeping things closed and proprietary.By keeping the software closed and proprietary, it's possible to support our clients in regions, which have software patents(USA,Japan). The problem is, that thow we don't violate the GPL or any other humain license, the patent system is such a mess, that practically it's impossible to make a program, that doesn't violate any patents. I relly don't understand, how does anyone ever dare to do any free software development in the U.S.A. and put it on the server, which located in the U.S.A. If the software is closed and proprietary, nobody ever knows(and thanks to the "nice" patent system, we as the developers don't know eather) if we have violated any software patents or not. If there's no direct proof or code to watch, nobody can't blame us in almost anything, because they can't prove it and we are not obligated to show the code, just like the SCO is bullying with the legal system. So I guess, that one of the reasons, why some type of software is not GPL'd, but is kept closed and propritary, is the existance of software patents. Now, that was a clear example, where the patents support industrial sicrecy. Who knows, may be if we could GPL our work, someone, who's writing something similar, could benefit from our software eather by code or by some nice, simple, idea. We could defenately benefit from other people's work instead of reinventing the weel. So, no wonder that most of the REAL INNOVATION is in the FREE SOFTWARE(GPL'd software). Let's all graduate the U.$.A.'s and Japan's patent systems for "supporting innovation"!!!!
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 23, 2003 11:01 UTC (Sun) by caf (subscriber, #7566) [Link] > For example, can you recommend to me a good open source U.S. Income Tax> package? That's the only reason I still run Windows at home. If you mean Personal U.S. Income Tax package, a cross-platform solution
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 6:41 UTC (Thu) by DAldredge (guest, #17015) [Link] What crossplatform dev env are you talking about?
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:29 UTC (Fri) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] Borland Delphi / Kylix.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 23, 2003 0:59 UTC (Sun) by DAldredge (guest, #17015) [Link] Having used Kylix Pro/Dev 1 / 2 / 3 I can tell you why few copies were bought. It didn't work correctly and Borland didn't release patches/fixes for most of the bugs that were found. Their method of bug fixing was to up the version number and charge for the upgrade.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 12:53 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Even as a free software developer you have no rights whatsoever regarding community support. If you don't understand how the process works, and how you can benefit from it, don't complain when things don't turn out the way you planned or expected. Instead, you could consider investing a bit of time and money, like you would have probably done in any other case. By now, you look like a clown if you do not understand the meaning of "free" in free software.That said, I don't understand how you can build your business on top of a software package that a) does not have a serious support policy; and b) forces you into a specific market, and out of a possibly very profitable one. Maybe you are just trolling here. However, as I have said before on this forum, I do think it is true that part of the "community" reacts like a raging bull on a red flag, if there is only the slightest mention of anything proprietary. Unfortunately this notion is more or less confirmed, right above. I cannot see how shouting angrily at the top of your lungs does our cause any good. You really do not have to be the Kissinger of Linux diplomacy to throw together a slightly more civil response.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 13:51 UTC (Thu) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] "That said, I don't understand how you can build your business on top of a software package that a) does not have a serious support policy; and b) forces you into a specific market, and out of a possibly very profitable one. Maybe you are just trolling here."As a side note, that's what most free software packages give you. No serious support policy, force you into a specific market. yes there can be a stong community behing it, even companies, but if you build your business directly on top of it, you still don't have any agreement signed and you're on the front line.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 16:15 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] You seem to be making the same mistakes as the original poster.Community support is a bonus, it is not a replacement for the kind of support you have probably grown accustomed to with respect to proprietary software (you know, the kind that compares memory to gasoline). It is certainly not a right. The mere fact that I choose to distribute my software under a GPL license does not imply that you are entitled to any kind of support from me or anyone else. If support matters to you, you choose software that is supported. For some shops, this means uncle Ernie will have to be consulted, other companies will be turning to IBM, RedHat or one of the many other companies that sell support as a product. Your suggestion that free software and signed agreements do not play nicely together strikes me as odd. Plus, with free software you have the possibility to take matters into your own hands, something that is much harder -- if not impossible -- to do with prorietary software. In other words, the whole spectrum of support is available to you, at least in principle. (By the way, the popularity of some Google groups and other forums should tell you something about your average level of support for proprietary software.)
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 21, 2003 20:25 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] An example from real life: in my stepfather's office, windows is used on workstations, but linux is used as a gateway and a file server. Both, the workstations and the linux server are maintained by a local IT company, which sends a monthly bill, which consists of the following:* a fixed sum for routine maintainence, * additional fee for overhours and new hardware. Now that's an exact example, how Linux is maintained, but one of the differences between Linux and Windows is, that in case of Linux, the maintainer is relly able to fix the problem by modifying the code, but in case of proprietary, closed, software, by itself the maintainer can only try to cure the symptoms, not the cause. Think of any virus as a security hole. Now, shouldn't security holes BE FIXED AND REMOVED instead of using a symptoms preventers, such as "antivirus software"???
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 18:09 UTC (Thu) by kasperd (guest, #11842) [Link] > The vendor of that development environment has just discontinued their Linux portWhich is one of the major drawbacks of proprietary software. If your development environment had been free software, you would never have faced the problem you are facing now.
After you tip your hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:29 UTC (Thu) by argent (guest, #17054) [Link] "If your development environment had been free software, you would never have faced the problem you are facing now."Finish the sentence. "... unless you don't have the skills or resources to pick up the traces after the community abandoned that particular product." I see they're trying to resurrect TenDRA. Jolly good. Maybe they'll shorten the trail of abandoned free software products by a step or two. And even if the development environment had been proprietary, you could have kept going if you had the source code in escrow, as many people with safety critical projects still demand. It all comes down to the resources you have to divert to each particular component of your requirements... and those resources may well include money and "pull" as well as developer time.
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:55 UTC (Wed) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] RMS defends the GFDL because it gives users all of the *useful* freedoms they need. The GPL also restricts certain actions, but only non-useful actions.Interesting. Could you please direct me to the list of useful vs. non-useful freedoms? I would be interested in reading it. I would also be curious to know how such a list was developed. sPh
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 19:30 UTC (Wed) by guan (guest, #13326) [Link] No, I can't, but I can point out freedoms that are useful to developers but not to users. For example the freedom to distribute modified versions of a work. I think the keyword is users.
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:36 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] And I become a developer how?My reading of the GPL is that as soon as I modify a GPL'd product and then distribute my modified binary, I must also make the modifications available to the recipients. Thus, I become a developer just by making the binary available to others. If I eat a meal, I'm a diner. As soon as I cook the meal, I'm a cook. That seems to be all it takes. Cooks have recipes, and Richard loves that metaphor. So there you have it. How is the GFDL going to restrict me, as a user who made a change to the documented program, and wants to distribute my changes in documentation as well as source code?
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:30 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Stop. I thought that the GNU project considered all users as potentialprogrammers and that was the reason behind the GPL. That nobody could restricted from acting as a developer and forced to act as a mere consumer of goods. Maybe I'm wrong. But to me the GFDL does not preserve all useful rights. I wouldn't care about it if the license was not coming from the FSF. The
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 18:57 UTC (Wed) by v-i (guest, #16996) [Link] RMS defends the GFDL because it gives users all of the *useful* freedoms they need. The GPL also restricts certain actions, but only non-useful actions.You didn't differentiate between the GPL and the GFDL with this comment: you're saying both restrict only non-useful actions. Thomas Bushnell says "It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever." To me, that certainly looks like an useful freedom to have.
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 20:45 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > I'm on Thomas's side, but lets get our facts straight.What fact did I say that was wrong? > The problem is that Thomas represents stuff that contradicts GNU policy. Thomas does not "represent" stuff that contridicts GNU policy, any more than a whole person represents any particular ideology. I have seen Thomas speak out very eloquently against the GNU FDL, but I have seen many other people do so, as well. There is nothing about Thomas's inherent being, or anyone else's, that is anti-GNU. If Debian "dismissed" developers every time that they disagreed with the project or policy, there would be very few developers. In Debian's case, we have the mailing lists to publicly debate issues, the Technical Committee for a "final" decision, and an election process if things get horribly messed up. On the other hand, the only voice coming out of the GNU project is RMS, and he also seems to be the one who makes all the decisions. (From your later post...) > But remember that you're only hearing one side of this story. This is not a problem if an organization conducts its business in the open, as most Free Software and Open Source organizations do. > Stallman just does his best. On this issue, I'm not happy with his best, but lets not all point out where the strongman stumbled. Do you really mean this? Because RMS has done good things in the past, we should not criticize him now? Sorry, but I care about free software. While I acknowledge that RMS is human and makes mistakes, that doesn't mean those mistakes don't need to be fixed.
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 19, 2003 21:27 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Sorry, I've confused the thread with my comment. I was trying to address multiple comments in a rush as my dinner was getting cold :-)There were many speculative comments flying around. This of course was not helped by the incorrect title to this article. Thomas has not been removed from development. He has had the title of "maintainer" taken from him. This is a fairly meaningless title anyway, nothing like the Debian "developer" title. (But I don't agree with Richards reasons for removing it.) Yes, we should point out where Stallman makes mistakes, but too many (other) people take too much pride in being able to point out a flaw in this man. > > But remember that you're only hearing one side of this story This started as a private conversation between RMS and Thomas. I think it's okay for people to have private conversations. (Thomas then posted the conclusion to a private mailing list for discussion, and a member of that list posted it to a public list, and a member of the public list posted it to LWN, and LWN published it without checking the details)
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:36 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The title of this article is currently:"Thomas Bushnell is no longer Hurd maintainer" How is that incorrect or misleading? As for the body, I suppose it could be wrong that he is no longer the
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 1:40 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I did change the title, mostly because I thought the new one fit better into the weekly edition, which will be out shortly. That was probably a mistake; we try to avoid substantive changes after we put something up.The old title was "Thomas Bushnell removed from Hurd development."
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:08 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] It seems to me, that it would indeed be "useful" to be allowed to say include the description of a single function from the Emacs-manual in some other program or document without having to include kilobytes and kilobytes of "invariant sections".Who are to define which of my freedoms are "useful" ?
"useful freedoms" Posted Nov 21, 2003 0:31 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] ("important freedoms" would have been a more accurate phrase)Public domain is free. But this includes the freedom to abuse. So RMS invented the concept of copyleft which gives people the important freedoms, but takes away the freedom to abuse. With Eben Moglen, he drafted the GPL which is an implementation of copyleft that can be used for software. With the GFDL, RMS tried to create an implementation of copyleft that is suitable for books. In doing this, he had to figure out what the important freedoms are, and what restrictions are required to protect these important freedoms. In my opinion, he did not get the balance right, he put too many protection clauses into the license. Unfortunately, my first comment was rushed, and touched too many topics to explain each fully. I hope this clears up what I meant by "useful freedoms" (more accurately, "important freedoms").
Before this gets out of hand... Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:30 UTC (Thu) by srivasta (subscriber, #7075) [Link] I beg to differ. I do not think that the GFDL gives users all of the useful freedoms they need; the draft Debian position statement attempts to demonstrate why, and makes a stab of defining such useful freedoms. Manoj
|
|
||||||||||||