Re: [Savannah-hackers] This web site (called Savannah) is a centralpoin

[Jaime E. Villate]

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:26:59AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> 
> Jaime, I'm doubtfull about the addition of "that runs on free operating
> systems" in the front page sentence "This web site (called Savannah) is a
> central point for development, distribution and maintenance of Free
> Software".
> 
> First, we don't have to mimic ancient roman's law text and stating
> every cases possible in a two-lines front-page description. There are
> also others requirements, and they are not in this description. For
> instance, we should also add "GPL compatible".

No we don't, but if some users find that extra sentence useful, I do not
see anything wrong with adding it.

> Vianney Lecroart that asked us to modify this sentence was totally
> wrong when he said that the previous one (without "that runs on free
> operating systems") was a lie, as you and Rudy noticed.
> We would be liars only if we write that "Savannah is a central point
> ... of any Free Software in the world without any conditions". 
> Vianney Lecroart, working for Nevrax, so making free software that run
> on non-free platform, was probably disappointed by this requirement
> and that's probably why this requirement seemed to him so important.
In dependently of whether he is right or wrong, I do not see any harm
in adding an extra statement that may avoid confusions to a few people.

> Second, adding this means giving two informations in this description
> : software must be free, and must run on free platform. I think it's a
> bad idea to mix that here. 
I do not see why. I think it is an advantage to make it clear from the
beginning that the license itself is not guarantee that we will host
some project here.

> We should keep this description only focused on software freedom.
Do you see any conflict between software freedom and "that runs on free
operating systems". I don't.

> Running on a free platform serves software freedom. It shouldn't
> appears like a goal but part of the whole free software idea Software
> is free only when (also) running on free OSes. That's why it's
> important: to keep software freedom. Like the GPL is a mean, not a
> goal.
It is not our goal to impose a particular license, but I think that
creating a large collection of packages that run in a Free Operating
System is definitely our goal.

> Also saying "we also host Free Software projects that are not part of
> the GNU Project, but run on free platforms" can be misleading,
> almost opposing being part of the GNU project and running on free
> platforms. 
OK, I agree. I had not notice that it could be misinterpreted. How about:
   being part of the GNU project is not a requirement for your
   Free Software project to be hosted here. If it is Free
   Software and runs at least on one free operating system, you can register
   your project in this site.

> Finally, I think adding a new paragraph with the two most importants
> requirements (GPL-compatible, running on free OS) would be more
> appropriate, separated from the two first lines, focused on software
> freedom with the link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> What do you think?

I think that the "runs on free OS" requirement is much more limiting than
the GPL-compatible license. GPL-compatible includes most commonly used Free
licenses (even MBSD which amounts to public domain). A user can likely opt
for one of those license during the registration procedure, once he finds
out he has to do so. However, if he already works exclusively on Windows,
he will either go through with the registration, ignoring that
requirement, or get upset that we did not tell him about it before starting
the registration process.

Cheers,
Jaime