Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 3 Apr 2006, Ian Jackson said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
>> Well, yes. Consider the case that I write up a compiler for a
>> new language in C++ or ruby. Can I put this compiler in main? Even
>> if there is no public repository of code in this new language?
>
> These arguments seemed entirely mystifying to me until I figured out
> what Manoj is trying to do.
>
> Manoj, you're trying to establish or find a rule which depends only
> on the direction of dependency interrelationships and formal
> copyright status, and other things that can be clearly determined
> without regard to actual existence of any software, usual or
> plausible use cases, and intents of packagers and users. Am I right
> ?
Yes. I think I am fundamentally skeptical of a process that
depends on the judgement of people, especially when conducted in an
environment where such diverse views exist as were evinced in the
GFDL vote. I also think of the effect it would have on people working
on software and releasing it under a free license, if the wider
community branded their work as non-0free anyway, through no fault of
their own.
If I write a free compiler/emulator/virtual machine generator
(I actually have an unreleased UML/Xen one), but the only examples I
can provide are seen to be "toy" ones, or "there are better variants
already around", why should my work not reach a community of users
out there? Why would things change if third party decides to use my
work for non-free purposes?
Adding use cases and samples of third party software into the
mix makes the classification process brittle, irreproducible, and
controversial, and may end up penalizing authors of free software who
want to reach the users in the community through Debian, Ubuntu, and
other derived distributions.
And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by
distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out
software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free
input/output is still desirable, since it is a beachhead that can
then be exploited for free purposes by someone out there, who may
never be exposed to the software in question was its distribution to
be severely limited.
manoj
--
If you really want pure ASCII, save it as text... or browse it with
your favorite browser... -- Alexandre Maret <amaret@infomaniak.ch>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: