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 <email@example.com>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .