Re: How about creating

On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 04:24 +0300, Osama Khalid wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we
> > ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means
> > allowing justifying the use of proprietary software.
> 1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do whatever they wish.
> 2. GNOME will only host and endorse free software.

Right now, #2 isn't accurate. GNOME will also host open-source

        Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support
        open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module
        license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel
        mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed
        standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications
        that support closed protocols should also support open
        equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at
        all possible while still serving their intended purpose.

So, clearly, you guys want to change this, that means that i ask(ed)
this question:

> > Why not open-source software?

> I don't think we need to get into the free software vs. open source
> debate here.

That debate isn't the question here.

The question was "why not open-source software?"

> The main point where they differ is not whether any given

Their main difference isn't the question.

> code *on the Internet* is free/open (and that's the important part
> here), but whether certain conditions, such as Tivoization, may turn
> the code into non-free/closed.

Sure, however, why not open-source software?



Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA -

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