Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Actually, I think your response only strengthens my point. I'm
_not_ telling Sun and Apple that their restrictive licensing is
all right. Excluding support for non-free should not bundle all
non-DFSG-compliant software into one big mass of evil software.
A non-selling clause makes a license non-DFSG-compliant, but
to me it's not as non-free as whatever licensing from Sun and Apple
you are refering to. So why treat them the same way?
Peter
Ian McKellar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 03:01:09PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I cannot support the removal of non-free until non-free itself is
> > split into finer-grained sections of non-freeness.
> >
> > Some people speak of non-free here as if it were
> > non-distributable software with shrinked-wrapped licenses!
> >
> Thats not the point. We have a distintion - DFSG. Software is from the
> right side or the wrong side of the tracks. Are you suggesting we need
> the Debian Not-So-Free Software Guidelines? Wouldn't this just indicate
> to our users, the Free Software Community and the world in general that
> we don't take free software seriously - that its okay to deprive users
> of their right to free software? Thats how I would take it. This would
> be telling Sun and Apple that their restrictive licensing is all right.
> This would be telling all those companies that have opened their code
> up under Free Software and Open Source licenses that they needn't have
> bothered.
>
> I find this suggestion personally offensive. I devote a lot of my time
> to writing and advocating free software. I do it because its the Right
> Thing to do.
Reply to: