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

Re: Bruce's rhetoric

> There are also several (well, I know of 2, but we aren't as vocal) 
> maintainers that would have liked debian to be *more* free (i.e., 
> put more restrictions on the allowed licences). For example, the Debian
> Free Sofware Guidelines currently allow packages that don't allow
> modified source to be distributed (as long as we can distribute patches).
> There has never been a vote about that, but I suspect several maintainers
> disagree with Debian's (and Bruce's) stance in this respect.

Actually, if non-free were renamed to non-dfsg then I would alo be in favor of 
tightening the curtain  little on the main distribution.  My real problem with 
this all is that by saying non-free and meaning non-dfsg, we are redefining a 
term (most people in the world think of non-free to mean simply something for 
which you don't have to pay).  Lets be more specific then non-free.

> You've been waching too much US Politics sleeze!
> (Well, actually, I *would* like to know how Ian sleeps with -- could
> we get a few nice Debian scandals please?)

Hey, that would be kinda amusing.  I can just see it now -- "Next week on 
Oprah: Mysterious Debian Developers who..."

ahh, never mind...

Brought to you by the letters E and K and the number 9.

Paul J. Thompson <thomppj@thomppj.student.okstate.edu>

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 .

Reply to: