Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers

[mbaker@iee.org (Mark Baker)]

In article <199711140743.XAA19659@eskimo.com>,
	Leland Olds <olds@eskimo.com> writes:

> (I think the sometimes venomous opposition to Qt is a result of this
> fear.  Motif seems to be perceived as less of a threat, so it is
> slightly more tolerated, even though it's licensing is more restrictive
> than Qt's.)

The problem with Qt is that many people believe it to be free, and so use it
in projects, and then find that the result is that their software is
considered non-free by many people, whatever they wanted. Debian
distributing it in a non-free directory makes it obvious to people that it
isn't really free. As I understand it, Redhat, who don't have a separate
non-free section, don't distribute it at all for this reason.

If Qt clearly stated that it wasn't free, no-one would have such a problem
with it.

> Personally, I think we could be a little more friendly to non-DFSG cost
> free software, and that it would not threaten the goals of the Debian
> Free Software Guidelines.

But that kind of library does threaten the goals of our guidelines. When
it's applications, there is much less of a threat (though it may stop people
from writing free alternatives).

In any case, that kind of software generally has all the disadvantages of
commercial software---you can't modify, and in many cases even look at, the
source, and it's from a small number of authors so doesn't have the quality
of free software---without any of the advantages.

> A more tolerant attitude might guard against Debian being perceived as
> dogmatic in it's idealism.

I'm dogmatic and proud of it ;)
.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .