[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: free vs. non-free debate
- Subject: Re: free vs. non-free debate
- From: Tim <>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:21:22 -0600 (CST)
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 2 Nov 1999 13:35:20 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <a9vQuD.A.B5C.YiuH4@murphy>
> I find this view rather short sighted. I thought our being here as the LDP
> is to document Linux and provide information to people to let them use it.
I tend to agree more than just a little.
> I don't think it's in our "charter" to dictate to people what they should use.
> We should provide a higher emphasis on free software, but denying documentation
> about non-free software is shooting the Linux community in the foot.
> Sometimes, non-free software is the answer that is required. It's not a failing
> of the free software community, it's just the way it is. MySQL isn't Oracle,
> Koffice isn't StarOffice, and there isn't a bit of free software out there
> that's Remedy.
Let's really put some thought into this. If we delve deep enough into
many documents, I think we'd see that we're alot more commercial (at least
endorse it in one form or another) than we think we are.
Then I ask this:
If we are not or choose not to support non-free documentation, then where
does that leave us? What are we to do with our Commercial-HOWTO and
Consultants HOWTO? RedHat is certainly *not* free, but yet we have HOWTOs
that support it as well as other software.
There is a fine line here, and perhaps I'm only making things a little
more hazy, but let's not cut off our nose despite our face.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com