On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:04:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > 1. requiring that modified source be distributed as patches+original > > > (so, no public CVS, since cvs co gives fully-merged source). > > We have a general consensus that this was a hoop we should not have > > permitted. > > No, we do not. > > It's something that upstream authors should not require, but it does not > make something non-free. Bad != Non-free. Well, let me put myself on record as being in the "patch clause was a hoop we should not have permitted" camp. And I do not think that my position on this issues makes me some sort of "Bad == Non-free" superficialist reasoner; indeed, I resent any such implication as a hasty conclusion fallacy. For that accusation to be warranted, one must demonstrate that I (or anyone else who shares my opinion on this issue) actually draw an equivalency between "Bad" and "Non-free" by advocating in *every case* that bad actions permitted (or mandated) by a software license be forbidden by the DFSG (or our interpretation of it.) In any event, I've already public stated my belief in a position incompatible with this trivialization[1]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00069.html -- G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered." Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have branden@debian.org | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpo96CA4Chr1.pgp
Description: PGP signature