On 21-Jan-99 Gregor Hoffleit wrote: >> I think, and this is just off the cuff, that my problem with the >> license, be it the former OR latter, is the fact that the USER now >> has a license issue to deal with. I think (again, on the fly) that >> there should be no extra licensing worries for the user. They >> shouldn't *have* to look at the license of every package, the first >> time they use it, to determine if there are any "extra" restrictions >> that they have to comply with and we don't have (AFAIK) any way to >> inform the user that I would consider adequate. (ie, they might not see >> messages via dselect/dpkg if a sysadmin installs it for them. They >> might not see the description if they install via apt... etc) > > You're certainly right, but this is in fact a problem with the notice > clause in your drafts. Maybe, that's why I post the drafts and ask for suggestions. > You mean USER in contrast to DEVELOPER ? This distinction is a little > bit deliberate with free software IMHO, since we do educate the users > that they have the right to modify the software. > [snip] > I don't see the borderline between restrictions on the USER (which you > don't like) and restrictions on the DEVELOPER (which you seem to > tolerate). Maybe "use" would have been a better word than "user". Software should be free. Free to use, period. Free to modify how one wishes, period. Free to give out and/or sell (or not), period. Free to take Neat Functions(tm) from to use in ones own code, period. Their *should* be no such thing as "copyright" and "plagurism(sp?)" shouldn't apply. That's base idea of Free Software/Open Source. We go on to say, in the DFSG, what restrictions we'd accept on that ideal. The restrictions, however, arn't universal. They are (or should be worded) that they are restrictions, seperatly, on use, distribution, modification and derivation. For example, we can allow one restriction (credits) on modifications w/o allowing that restriction to be on derivations. (implied: and still call it Free Software as far as Debian is concerned). In this case, that is where the distiction could be. (I'm being hypothetical at this point. But that was the *intent* of the latest draft, right or wrongly worded.) The "retaining credits" is a restriction on modifications but not on use. The software should be free to *use*, period. No restrictions allowed. Would we allowed a license where, every time you ran a... program, say, to print a document, you had to go to your office window and shout "I'm using foobar printer written by john smith"? -- ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgp_7_9fmpKK_.pgp
Description: PGP signature