[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Guix and FSDG

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Guix and FSDG
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:01:34 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

* Freemor <address@hidden> [2019-11-27 16:32]:
> > Liberating software is something that maintainers need to do, but not
> > give to users to run it, unless they are making the distribution.
> I get what you are trying to say here. But to me it still feels less free then
> it should be. IMHO anyone should have access to the liberation scripts as such
> access is the heart of software freedom.

And I said that liberation scripts can be packaged in the
distribution, to help users create distribution.

But distribution itself shall be copiable, distributable, without
running any scripts. I wish to copy it on DVD and give away.

> I guess something in the way you are wording it or it is hitting my
> eyes makes it land something like "only select special people shall
> have access to the liberation scripts".

You are mistaken, I never implied it even, and I already said that
liberation scripts could be packaged under package name
e.g. "Liberation Scripts".

> > > As for "to see that non-free software exists". To me this is a
> > > rather odd stance. We are in a world in which the defacto default is
> > > non-free software.  To try and act like this does not exist is close
> > > to nonsensical. This idea that the user must at all cost be
> > > protected from that knowledge goes back to my paragraph above and
> > > the treatment of "users" as "less than".
> > 
> > Proprietary software shall not be delivered to users, as simple as
> > that. 
> I never suggested Otherwise. Saying icecat is based on Firefox is not
> delivering firefox.
> > We work on distribution of free software. Of course we want to
> > protect users of proprietary software.
> We can provide free software.  We can provide sound advice. We can be very
> careful to to suggest or aid the use of anything non-free. We can educate. But
> ultimately it falls to the user to protect themselves.

When user chooses or selects fully free system distribution, then such
shall be fully free. Selection alone and installation shall give users
free software. No need for complexities.

> I think my point was poorly made I'm arguing against the scripts being hidden
> or special access or whatever. That seems a concept that is less free and open
> then it should be.

That would mean that liberation scripts would be non-free software, it
would be contradictory.

> But perhaps I'm hearing things wrong. Perhaps you just mean that the scripts 
> should not be distributed unrequested. That I could possibly agree with.

I never said they should not be distributed, quite contrary, I said
that such could be provided as a package for somebody who wish to
prepare distribution.

But when distribution is prepared, such shall never give to user to
run the script to get free software, free software shall be
distributed by copying not by running scripts.

Analogy to linux-libre is quite good! You get the final product to
download as binary, and you get the final product to download as
source code.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]