Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Miriam Ruiz writes ("Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer"):
> But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most
> likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone
> packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the
> archive.
It would probably be possible to make the restriction configurable,
so that a user could disable it easily.
So it seems like our options (assuming no-one manages to change the
author's mind) might be:
(a) Distribute the software with the restriction entirely removed,
within the legal permission granted by the authors but against
their clearly expressed non-binding wishes;
(b) Distribute the software with the restriction on by default but
made configurable, perhaps with only the grudging acceptance of
upstream;
(c) Distribute it with the restriction compiled in.
(d) Do not distribute the software at all;
Both (a) and (b) have their problems but (c) and (d) seem worse to me.
While it is very likely that the TC would (in response to a bug
report) overrule a maintainer who did (c), I'm doubtful whether the TC
would overrule a maintainer who did (b).
Personally I don't think (b) is too bad an imposition on users. It's
not a DFSG violation. At worst it's annoying.
Ian.
Reply to: