[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#283717: hasciicam: enhance Description



* jaromil 

| On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:43:29PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
|
| > May I suggest to move the package to non-free then?
| 
| may i suggest to move the package out of Debian then?

Non-free is not Debian, so that's exactly what will happen.

| now please you all take a breath and stop thinking like a robot;
| try to imagine my position, the position of an author of software which
| happens to be included also in Debian.
| this is something that you should carefully evaluate in order to
| accomply to your blessed mission of distributing free software.

There is nothing blessed and nothing mission about Debian.

| I write free software, HasciiCam is just one, FreeJ is another, MuSE is
| another, they are all in Debian even if i never asked you to include
| them, still i love free and open source software and of course i let
| people do what they can with it.

If hasciicam is free software then we may do such things as change the
description.  If not, it's not free.  If it's free, we don't have to
ask for permission to distribute it -- you gave the world that
permission when you made it free.

| and again I and I am offended by someone using small bureaucratic
| clauses of the free license actually as an argument AGAINST a programmer
| of free software.

You have to play by the same rules as you ask others to play by.

| oh, is so great to be here with you guys!!!

«Multiple exclamation marks,» he went on, shaking his head, «are a
sure sign of a diseased mind.»  (Terry Pratchett, Eric)

| i'm talking about correctness and respect!

[...]

| now please get out of my hut and go playing indian and cowboys in the
| garden you kids! :)

Do as you preach.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are      : :' :
                                                                      `. `' 
                                                                        `-  



Reply to: