[med-svn] r5568 - trunk/community/papers/11_med-floss_luxemburg

[Steffen Möller]

Author: moeller
Date: 2010-12-09 20:48:41 +0000 (Thu, 09 Dec 2010)
New Revision: 5568

Modified:
   trunk/community/papers/11_med-floss_luxemburg/paper-text.tex
Log:
Yet another two chapters that I personally consider improved :)


Modified: trunk/community/papers/11_med-floss_luxemburg/paper-text.tex
===================================================================
--- trunk/community/papers/11_med-floss_luxemburg/paper-text.tex	2010-12-09 16:00:23 UTC (rev 5567)
+++ trunk/community/papers/11_med-floss_luxemburg/paper-text.tex	2010-12-09 20:48:41 UTC (rev 5568)
@@ -189,37 +189,75 @@
 platform-centric user community difficult, also helps finding
 contributors across platforms. The conditions under which those
 collaborations are most feasible are summarised in the Debian
-Policy.
+Policy and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 
 
-\subsubsection{Debian Policy}
+%\subsubsection{Debian Policy}
+%
+%\marginpar{the LSB is contraproductive in this context, really}
+%
+%To a certain degree all GNU/Linux distributions are similar.
+%The \printurl{www.linuxbase.org/}{Linux Standard Base}
+%(LSB)\cite{lsb} is an attempt to develop and promote a set of
+%standards aiming to further increase compatibility among Linux distributions,
+%thereby enabling software applications to run on any compliant system.
+%The very essence of a particular distribution is its {\itshape policy
+%  document\/}.
 
-\marginpar{the LSB is contraproductive in this context, really}
+\subsubsection{Debian Free Software Guidelines adn Debian Policy}
 
-To a certain degree all GNU/Linux distributions are similar.
-The \printurl{www.linuxbase.org/}{Linux Standard Base}
-(LSB)\cite{lsb} is an attempt to develop and promote a set of
-standards aiming to further increase compatibility among Linux distributions,
-thereby enabling software applications to run on any compliant system.
-The very essence of a particular distribution is its {\itshape policy
-  document\/}.
+Free or not free - Debian has a collection of conditions referred
+to as the Debian Free Software Guidelines that allow the distinction
+between Free, distributable as non-free and not distributable.
+The most notable of these rules are that software must be allowed
+to be modified, that those modifications be allowed to be redistributed
+and that the recipient is granted the same rights. Also, there
+shall be no restriction on the recipients to whom those rights
+are granted or the work that is exerted with that software. 
+Many software packages are distributed as free for academia, which
+are then redistributed not in the main Debian distribution but
+in the non-free section.
 
-While every single maintainer of a Debian package has to build the
-package in compliance with the policy, he has the ability and the right
-to decide which software is worth packaging.  Usually maintainers
-choose software that they used in their own work and they are free
-to move the development of Debian in a certain direction (as long as
-they follow the rules of the policy).  This is referred to as {\em
-  Do-o-cracy} in Debian and refers to the fact that: The one who does something
-  decides what is done and how it is done.
+Another rule that should be stressed is that it is explicitly
+stated that above rules need to be granted for all operating
+systems, i.e. not only for Debian. This is another indication 
+for an intrinsic impetus to help Free software at large.
 
+The technical constraints on the packaging are formulated in the Debian
+Policy document.  While every package needs to comply with that policy,
+every single maintainer of a Debian package has complete freedom
+to decide what software to package. Those who package, i.e. those
+who do, give the distribution it shape.
+This is referred to as {\em
+Do-o-cracy} in Debian and refers to the fact that: The one who does something
+decides what is done and how it is done.
+
+% Is this needed?
+%Usually, maintainers
+%choose software that they use for their professional work, for those
+%who use Linux at work. And they are free
+%to move the development of Debian in a certain direction (as long as
+%they follow the rules of the policy). 
+
 \subsubsection{Active influence of small groups}
 
+A decision to use the distribution as the main working operating
+system can only be made when the user can be as productive as
+with an alternative OS. Part of that consideration is the
+availability of software that contributes to everyday's routine
+and beyond.
+
 This {\em Do-o-cracy} principle enables individuals or small groups to
-actively influence the support of certain work fields.  While company-driven
-Linux distributions somehow have to compete in market-relevant
-fields with other distributors, a purely community-driven distribution
-has no specific need to support basically mainstream software. % I don't get it
+actively influence the support of certain work fields.  
+Here, community-driven Linux distributions have an edge over 
+commercial Linux distributions. The number of users that may use
+a package, i.e. that pay back for the initial packaging effort,
+is not the dicisive factor for or against the maintenance of a
+package. One only needs a sufficiently large community of active
+package maintainers that give the confidence that the current
+infrastructure will be maintained, that new packages will 
+be brought into the distribution and that one will possibly be
+allowed to improve current workflows with the external stimuli.
 Debian Med is actively profiting from this fact and is supporting a
 lot of applications which are very specific to medical care and are
 not integrated in any other large distribution.