What is regarded as the most free linux distro? Would it be Linux from scratch with only free software added to it or otherwise? Is there an already existing distro that is in line with the FSF ideals?
I use Debian for servers at the moment and I am looking into Debian or Arch as a desktop distro.
Allan Irving allanirving@allanirving.co.uk writes:
What is regarded as the most free linux distro?
How do you measure “most free”? Why must there be a single “most free”? I'd rather look at what the remaining barriers are in a given operating system and address those.
Is there an already existing distro that is in line with the FSF ideals?
The FSF maintains a set of guidelines for an operating system to be considered free URL:https://www.gnu.org/distros/, and there you can find which ones the FSF currently considers to be free.
I use Debian for servers at the moment and I am looking into Debian or Arch as a desktop distro.
The FSF refuses to list Debian because the Debian Project also makes some non-free software available for users (the ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’ areas, not enabled by default), which is not part of the Debian operating system.
If you leave the repositories at the default Debian settings – that is, only the Debian operating system and not anything outside Debian (only the ‘main’ area of the archive is actually part of Debian) – it is a free software distribution by the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Le 29/07/2014 à 02h30, Allan Irving a écrit :
What is regarded as the most free linux distro?
See https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html that lists well known fully free distributions which are following free system distribution guidelines: https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html. Some other popular distributions aren’t included for the following reasons: https://gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html.
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where the *distribution* (or at least people too close to it) distribute proprietary software.
Would it be Linux from scratch with only free software added to it or otherwise?
Since Linux from scratch has as purpose of making you compile fully a Linux-based Unix system (GNU/Linux with more or less GNU, depending of how you build it) with teaching purposes, it’s quite easy to build it fully free.
For the basis system you just have to download, compile and install GNU Linux-libre instead of the classical Linux kernel shipped by kernel.org.
For the rest (BLFS) you have to be aware of the license of the package you’re installing, but that isn’t so difficult.
Since LFS/BLFS is not a distribution but a *book* it can’t be qualified of “free” or not, since *you* determine what will be the final system. ;)
Is there an already existing distro that is in line with the FSF ideals?
Yes, several (even if only a few), as I said: https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html.
I use Debian for servers at the moment and I am looking into Debian or Arch as a desktop distro.
Debian is fine because it is more upstream, known and stable. Therefore it is fine *until you don’t use nonfree repository* which ships proprietary software for “users who should absolutely use it”, to “make them still use Debian instead of something even less free”. Their wiki even recommend several times to install nonfree software without even warning the user about its implications.
This approach is wrong and doesn’t even try —as do Trisquel or Parabola— to fully base itself on education rather than consciousness (“you have to buy a free-friendly wifi card to have wifi to stay free, see, it’s not *so* expensive, it’s quite quick and easy” instead of “Oh yeah you can just install the proprietary driver doing this”).
So Debian is fine is you’re a warned user who can know the implications of using proprietary software and will know to not use them even with the wiki (and people on IRC) promoting nonfree repo.
Otherwise, if for example you’re advising to switch to GNU/Linux some non-completely-warned friend, and you fear them to be invited to use proprietary software, you have gNewSense, a Debian-based FSF-financed distribution: http://www.gnewsense.org/.
And if you think something more “ubuntuish” would be more adapted to them but you don’t recommand Ubuntu and derivatives because of the obvious issues they have, you still have Trisquel, an Ubuntu-based fully free distribution (very fine): http://trisquel.info/
For Arch it’s quite simple, because some simple things allows to blacklist all proprietary software, with Parabola: http://parabolagnulinux.org/.
Hoping to help :)
Hi all,
Am 29.07.2014 08:09, schrieb Garreau, Alexandre:
Le 29/07/2014 à 02h30, Allan Irving a écrit :
What is regarded as the most free linux distro?
...
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where the *distribution* (or at least people too close to it) distribute proprietary software.
...
Debian is fine because it is more upstream, known and stable. Therefore it is fine *until you don’t use nonfree repository* which ships proprietary software for “users who should absolutely use it”, to “make them still use Debian instead of something even less free”. Their wiki even recommend several times to install nonfree software without even warning the user about its implications.
This approach is wrong and doesn’t even try —as do Trisquel or Parabola— to fully base itself on education rather than consciousness (“you have to buy a free-friendly wifi card to have wifi to stay free, see, it’s not *so* expensive, it’s quite quick and easy” instead of “Oh yeah you can just install the proprietary driver doing this”).
For some it's wrong, for others it's pragmatic, I'd say. The world seems to have a lot more colours than just black and white.
So Debian is fine is you’re a warned user who can know the implications of using proprietary software and will know to not use them even with the wiki (and people on IRC) promoting nonfree repo.
Yes, Debian goes to great lengths only having Free Software in its main repository and not making them depend on non-free stuff.
Best wishes Michael
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:09, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where
Right, I am one of those who would encourage on pragmatic reasons to use the non-free repository to install documentation for most GNU software. I would never encourage anyone to use Trisquel because that renders any desktop machine useless due to FSF's layman opinion on the openness of firmware and hardware.
I have never seen that Debian encourages the use of proprietary software; that is cheap FSF propaganda.
Debian is the best OS if you want to use _fully free software_ according to a solid definition established by a large democratic group and not by some real world blind people who even urge their co-GNU hackers to write non free documentation.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner (aka dd9jn at gnu)
Le 29/07/2014 à 13h31, Werner Koch a écrit :
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:09, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where
Right, I am one of those who would encourage on pragmatic reasons to use the non-free repository to install documentation for most GNU software.
Well, a repository for non-free documentation would be better, since documentation hasn’t to be as free as functional software (for reasons explained by FSF) and therefore doesn’t cause ethical problems, while proprietary software does.
I would never encourage anyone to use Trisquel because that renders any desktop machine useless due to FSF's layman opinion on the openness of firmware and hardware.
I noticed a better compatibility than you say. Most of time just wifi card doesn’t work on laptop (so we need purchasing another at Thinkpinguin for instance), sometimes graphic card… That’s all. Most of times it just works.
Personally I find worse to encourage anyone to use the non-free counterpart to Trisquel, Ubuntu, for same reasons explained by FSF: spywares, proprietary software promotion, undeblobbed kernel… but also because it became a big commercial thing, and therefore it’s goal cannot anymore be the interest of users freedom, but only profit (hopping both goals don’t go against each other… but it inevitably tends to happens, and then market laws just applies).
I have never seen that Debian encourages the use of proprietary software; that is cheap FSF propaganda.
If not Debian, at least people close to it: people on main IRC channels regularly do it, and Debian wiki does too. I wasn’t repeating what FSF said, I was talking of my own experience. Then of course official Debian project claimed that they can’t work enough to correct everything of that, and that’s true. They can’t censor irc channel for that, and they can’t check all wiki edits.
Debian is the best OS if you want to use _fully free software_ according to a solid definition established by a large democratic group
Well, no, there’s also the nonfree repository which makes Debian quite compatible with non-free-software-friendly hardware.
and not by some real world blind people
Please do not use any handicap, disability or disease as an insult, it’s humiliating and insulting for really disabled or diseased people. Just don’t.
who even urge their co-GNU hackers to write non free documentation.
No, putting invariant sections, afaik, isn’t an obligation, it’s possibility, because freedom to modify history knowledge doesn’t make sense. So the documentation stays free for everything that it should. Stay pragmatic, for once, it’s Debian who applied blindly rules without thinking to reasons to do it.
Nonetheless that doesn’t make me think these invariant sections *should* be here, simply because I prefer think to “what is it useful to prohibit” instead of “what is it useful to allow”, as rms/fsf does.
Hi all,
Am 29.07.2014 14:14, schrieb Garreau, Alexandre:
Le 29/07/2014 à 13h31, Werner Koch a écrit :
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:09, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where
Right, I am one of those who would encourage on pragmatic reasons to use the non-free repository to install documentation for most GNU software.
Well, a repository for non-free documentation would be better, since documentation hasn’t to be as free as functional software (for reasons explained by FSF) and therefore doesn’t cause ethical problems, while proprietary software does.
I wonder whether anyone believes in this, sorry.
I omitted the GFDL sad story deliberately, though, because it's really just distracting.
Best wishes Michael
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Garreau, Alexandre galex-713@galex-713.eu wrote:
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where
Right, I am one of those who would encourage on pragmatic reasons to use the non-free repository to install documentation for most GNU software.
Well, a repository for non-free documentation would be better, since documentation hasn't to be as free as functional software (for reasons explained by FSF) and therefore doesn't cause ethical problems, while proprietary software does.
Well, as the debian stance showed, it causes ethical problems to a large part of the free software community.
I would never encourage anyone to use Trisquel because that renders any desktop machine useless due to FSF's layman opinion on the openness of firmware and hardware.
I noticed a better compatibility than you say. Most of time just wifi card doesn't work on laptop (so we need purchasing another at Thinkpinguin for instance), sometimes graphic card... That's all. Most of times it just works. Personally I find worse to encourage anyone to use the non-free counterpart to Trisquel, Ubuntu, for same reasons explained by FSF:
I believe Werner was arguing on Debian. Ubuntu is a different thing.
I have never seen that Debian encourages the use of proprietary software; that is cheap FSF propaganda.
If not Debian, at least people close to it: people on main IRC channels regularly do it, and Debian wiki does too. I wasn't repeating what FSF said, I was talking of my own experience. Then of course official Debian project claimed that they can't work enough to correct everything of that, and that's true. They can't censor irc channel for that, and they can't check all wiki edits.
Could you be more precise? I've been using Debian for 20 years, and I've never seen any endorsement or encouragement of not-free software. On the contrary it encourages the use of free software (see https://www.debian.org/intro/free).
Debian is the best OS if you want to use _fully free software_ according to a solid definition established by a large democratic group
Well, no, there's also the nonfree repository which makes Debian quite compatible with non-free-software-friendly hardware.
Non-free software is easy to replace by free software. Non-free hardware or hardware with non-free drivers has costs to be replaced that may be insignificant to you, but not to many others that want to join the community. Denying access to the internet because someone is on a laptop that its wireless card requires a binary blob to be loaded is absurd and pretty denies access to free software on commodity hardware.
Please do not use any handicap, disability or disease as an insult, it's humiliating and insulting for really disabled or diseased people. Just don't.
Please don't force your newspeak. Blindness was a good term to describe the issue (I refer you to any english language dictionary for the definition of blind).
regards, Nikos
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:06, nmav@gnutls.org said:
I believe Werner was arguing on Debian. Ubuntu is a different thing.
Sure. Ubuntu used the free software community and quite some money to get a share of the Linux market so to eventually commence the vacation-on-the-mars plan (aka Thawte-bis).
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
I don't suppose it matters hugely, just I have had most experience with GNU/Linux but could get my head around BSD if need be, I'm sure.
I was mostly referring to what would be regarded as the most free out of the box as such. I tend to avoid using non free software unless I have to. Of course when using a Mac or Windows machine, I usually have little choice but have never struggled to find anything for my own needs that works with Linux that is fully free.
If I'm honest, my knowledge of the licenses for Linux/GNU and or just Linux OSes is limited. I know enough to use it, and enough to know the forks and what is based on what. That's why I thought I'd put it to everyone here who could help guide me in the right direction as a base before I install something at home and get used to it, then get annoyed at myself for what I have supported whilst doing so.
For servers, I have always deployed Debian...as it's available...and there are ample guides.
Was just checking if I am as 'free' as I can be within reason.
Thanks everyone for the input so far, it has helped a lot!
*This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, copyrighted and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments. *
On 29 July 2014 15:25, Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:06, nmav@gnutls.org said:
I believe Werner was arguing on Debian. Ubuntu is a different thing.
Sure. Ubuntu used the free software community and quite some money to get a share of the Linux market so to eventually commence the vacation-on-the-mars plan (aka Thawte-bis).
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
-- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Le 29/07/2014 à 15h06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Garreau, Alexandre galex-713@galex-713.eu wrote:
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where
Right, I am one of those who would encourage on pragmatic reasons to use the non-free repository to install documentation for most GNU software.
Well, a repository for non-free documentation would be better, since documentation hasn't to be as free as functional software (for reasons explained by FSF) and therefore doesn't cause ethical problems, while proprietary software does.
Well, as the debian stance showed, it causes ethical problems to a large part of the free software community.
The question is not if they find a problem to it, but if there is actually one, if it is justified.
I would never encourage anyone to use Trisquel because that renders any desktop machine useless due to FSF's layman opinion on the openness of firmware and hardware.
I noticed a better compatibility than you say. Most of time just wifi card doesn't work on laptop (so we need purchasing another at Thinkpinguin for instance), sometimes graphic card... That's all. Most of times it just works. Personally I find worse to encourage anyone to use the non-free counterpart to Trisquel, Ubuntu, for same reasons explained by FSF:
I believe Werner was arguing on Debian. Ubuntu is a different thing.
He spoke about Trisquel, which is a different thing.
I have never seen that Debian encourages the use of proprietary software; that is cheap FSF propaganda.
If not Debian, at least people close to it: people on main IRC channels regularly do it, and Debian wiki does too. I wasn't repeating what FSF said, I was talking of my own experience. Then of course official Debian project claimed that they can't work enough to correct everything of that, and that's true. They can't censor irc channel for that, and they can't check all wiki edits.
Could you be more precise? I've been using Debian for 20 years, and I've never seen any endorsement or encouragement of not-free software. On the contrary it encourages the use of free software (see https://www.debian.org/intro/free).
I saw several times people on #debian@FreeNode recommanding nonfree, or pages on wiki saying to just include nonfree, without any discleamer, warning or even mention to other possibility (the device could be non completely required, or an alternative could maybe be purchased).
Debian is the best OS if you want to use _fully free software_ according to a solid definition established by a large democratic group
Well, no, there's also the nonfree repository which makes Debian quite compatible with non-free-software-friendly hardware.
Non-free software is easy to replace by free software. Non-free hardware or hardware with non-free drivers has costs to be replaced that may be insignificant to you, but not to many others that want to join the community. Denying access to the internet because someone is on a laptop that its wireless card requires a binary blob to be loaded is absurd and pretty denies access to free software on commodity hardware.
Yes. Still the fact is that we can live without wifi (with ethernet, just connect to some other computer and share connection, or with powerline, etc.) and that it harms freedom, so if we have no choice of course we have either to submit to driver editors or not to use the driver.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:14, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
that, and that’s true. They can’t censor irc channel for that, and they can’t check all wiki edits.
Debian would never do that - the FSF usually tries to be the MiniTrue.
and not by some real world blind people
Please do not use any handicap, disability or disease as an insult, it’s humiliating and insulting for really disabled or diseased people. Just
Come on. There are many usages of the term blind aside from visually impaired people. But you may ask to put it on the FSF's list of words-to-avoid (http://minitrue.fsf.org or so) ;-)
No, putting invariant sections, afaik, isn’t an obligation, it’s
Fortunately you don't known the personal communication.
should. Stay pragmatic, for once, it’s Debian who applied blindly rules without thinking to reasons to do it.
Nope. There is no general ban of all GFDL stuff.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
Le 29/07/2014 à 15h12, Werner Koch a écrit :
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:14, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
should. Stay pragmatic, for once, it’s Debian who applied blindly rules without thinking to reasons to do it.
Nope. There is no general ban of all GFDL stuff.
Nope, only GFDL with invariant sections. But the blindly applied rule is not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify history/points of view), while the documentation is useful and make no harm comparable to what proprietary software does.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:11, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify
Well, there are different opinions on whether freedom is useless or useful. It sometimes depends on where you are currently living. Guantanamo or Moscow.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
p.s. And now back to the real things.
On 2014-07-29 20:36, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:11, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify
Well, there are different opinions on whether freedom is useless or useful. It sometimes depends on where you are currently living. Guantanamo or Moscow.
Freedom is never useless. It gives you the opportunity to make your own choices rather than just have someone else decide for you. Linux have different flavours for different tastes, so you can pick up the best one which fits in your own needs. You have the option to build up your own distribution and optimize it if you want, but it is a time consuming task. Personally I use Debian and I have no complains about it. Actually I am very grateful for the thousands of developers, testers, librarians, admins and all the community which put a great effort into it, for the sake of all of us.
Cheers,
On 2014-07-29 20:36, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:11, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify
Well, there are different opinions on whether freedom is useless or useful. It sometimes depends on where you are currently living. Guantanamo or Moscow.
Freedom is never useless. It gives you the opportunity to make your own choices rather than just have someone else decide for you.
Ok, so can we say the freedom to change a truth to a lie is a freedom? Because in that case you’re making choice for someone else, the fact changing truth.
Linux have different flavours for different tastes, so you can pick up the best one which fits in your own needs.
*GNU/Linux
You have the option to build up your own distribution and optimize it if you want, but it is a time consuming task.
I agree, I experienced it myself :/
Personally I use Debian and I have no complains about it. Actually I am very grateful for the thousands of developers, testers, librarians, admins and all the community which put a great effort into it, for the sake of all of us.
I am too :) never said the contrary.
On 2014-07-29 22:13, Garreau, Alexandre wrote:
On 2014-07-29 20:36, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:11, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify
Well, there are different opinions on whether freedom is useless or useful. It sometimes depends on where you are currently living. Guantanamo or Moscow.
Freedom is never useless. It gives you the opportunity to make your own choices rather than just have someone else decide for you.
Ok, so can we say the freedom to change a truth to a lie is a freedom?
Yes ... "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority." - Francis Bacon -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time#cite_note-1 Most of the time the truth is relative according to your own perception of the facts. For some God is the only truth, for others Love is the real truth. Some says God is Love, others say Love is Kindness. And all of them are right but none of them have the Truth because it is an abstraction.
Because in that case you’re making choice for someone else, the fact changing truth.
People are responsible to make their own choices. It is like the relation between the teacher and the student. The teacher can explain something to you, but he cannot understand it for you.
Linux have different flavours for different tastes, so you can pick up the best one which fits in your own needs.
*GNU/Linux
Indeed, my bad. :)
You have the option to build up your own distribution and optimize it if you want, but it is a time consuming task.
I agree, I experienced it myself :/
Personally I use Debian and I have no complains about it. Actually I am very grateful for the thousands of developers, testers, librarians, admins and all the community which put a great effort into it, for the sake of all of us.
I am too :) never said the contrary.
I know, I agree with you. Sometimes I just want to participate in a good conversation.
Thanks.
Okay. Thanks for all the advice.
So Debian out the box is GNU/Linux?
I understand that the GNU package originally only has ~400 packages listed. If I install a piece of software that is GNU GPL, I presume it remains a GNU/Linux installation although the software itself may not be directly affiliated with the listed packages of the GNU project.
Am I understanding this correctly?
:)
- Sent from my toaster using recycled electrons.
This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, copyrighted and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments.
On 29 Jul 2014, at 22:03, Mauricio Nascimento aurion@fsfe.org wrote:
On 2014-07-29 22:13, Garreau, Alexandre wrote:
On 2014-07-29 20:36, Werner Koch wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:11, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify
Well, there are different opinions on whether freedom is useless or useful. It sometimes depends on where you are currently living. Guantanamo or Moscow.
Freedom is never useless. It gives you the opportunity to make your own choices rather than just have someone else decide for you.
Ok, so can we say the freedom to change a truth to a lie is a freedom?
Yes ... "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority." - Francis Bacon -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time#cite_note-1 Most of the time the truth is relative according to your own perception of the facts. For some God is the only truth, for others Love is the real truth. Some says God is Love, others say Love is Kindness. And all of them are right but none of them have the Truth because it is an abstraction.
Because in that case you’re making choice for someone else, the fact changing truth.
People are responsible to make their own choices. It is like the relation between the teacher and the student. The teacher can explain something to you, but he cannot understand it for you.
Linux have different flavours for different tastes, so you can pick up the best one which fits in your own needs.
*GNU/Linux
Indeed, my bad. :)
You have the option to build up your own distribution and optimize it if you want, but it is a time consuming task.
I agree, I experienced it myself :/
Personally I use Debian and I have no complains about it. Actually I am very grateful for the thousands of developers, testers, librarians, admins and all the community which put a great effort into it, for the sake of all of us.
I am too :) never said the contrary.
I know, I agree with you. Sometimes I just want to participate in a good conversation.
Thanks.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Am 30.07.2014 01:07, schrieb Allan Irving:
So Debian out the box is GNU/Linux?
Yes.
I understand that the GNU package originally only has ~400 packages listed. If I install a piece of software that is GNU GPL, I presume it remains a GNU/Linux installation although the software itself may not be directly affiliated with the listed packages of the GNU project.
On Debian, you don't install something from "the GNU package", but Debian packages, which are, despite the non-free repository, are all free software.
Some, but not all of them come from the GNU project, but all are free.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Partly. :-)
*This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, copyrighted and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments. *
The above cite has no legal relevance, so why not consider letting it go?
With kind regards,
Robert Kehl
On 2014-07-29 at 23:03, Mauricio Nascimento wrote:
On 2014-07-29 22:13, Garreau, Alexandre wrote:
On 2014-07-29 20:36, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:11, galex-713@galex-713.eu said:
not to refuse all GFDL stuff but to accept only “100% free” things, even when the freedom provided is useless (like the right to modify
Well, there are different opinions on whether freedom is useless or useful. It sometimes depends on where you are currently living. Guantanamo or Moscow.
Freedom is never useless. It gives you the opportunity to make your own choices rather than just have someone else decide for you.
Ok, so can we say the freedom to change a truth to a lie is a freedom?
Yes ... "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority." - Francis Bacon -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time#cite_note-1 Most of the time the truth is relative according to your own perception of the facts.
Completely right, you made me reconsider my statement, actually invariant sections are indeed an ethical issue.
For some God is the only truth, for others Love is the real truth. Some says God is Love, others say Love is Kindness. And all of them are right but none of them have the Truth because it is an abstraction.
And what’s about Science which would say “only sensible experience” ;)
Because in that case you’re making choice for someone else, the fact changing truth.
People are responsible to make their own choices. It is like the relation between the teacher and the student. The teacher can explain something to you, but he cannot understand it for you.
Good analogy, I keep it for later, it is really good…
Sometimes I just want to participate in a good conversation.
:D