Re: AW: Bug#8676: xautolock belongs in non-free
From: marekm@i17linuxb.ists.pwr.wroc.pl (Marek Michalkiewicz)
> But how about people (including me) who have working procmail setups?
I think Stephen's going to GPL it for us. One good reason for holding
the line on free software is that Debian has caused many software packages
to go to the GPL or other free licenses. Note that Dan Quinlan got
latex2e to GPL, there are no doubt many other examples like this.
> It should also not restrict the program from being used to develop
> other software (including non-free software). [...] some of the
> development libraries in Debian are licensed under the GPL (not LGPL).
> Now, non-free programs may not be linked with GPL-ed libraries (if I
> understand the GPL - please correct if I am wrong, I'm not a lawyer),
> and the normal use of a library is to link it with other programs.
> So, this looks like a use restriction to me.
Hm. I don't like "polluting" libraries, but I'm not sure it's our issue,
at least not yet. Comments, anyone? I agree we should warn about them.
Libpaper is our creation, is it not? Perhaps the GPL vs. LGPL is a mistake.
> I hope that programs without source (or without complete source, such as
> programs using Motif) would still be allowed to go in contrib. OK, it's
> not strictly free software, but still freely distributable.
None of this argument is about contrib at all. It's about the "core".
I did not propose any changes for contrib.
>> 7. The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
>> being part of a Debian system. If a person extracts the program from
>> Debian and uses it or distributes it without Debian, that person and
>> any people to whom the program is redistributed should have the same
>> rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.
>
>Why this new restriction? If a person extracts the program from Debian,
>that person presumably can read the copyright statements (they even have
>a standard location, /usr/doc/<package>/copyright). Placing the package
>in contrib (but please, separate stable and unstable versions) should be
>sufficient to alert people that they should read the licenses. People
>should always read all the licenses anyway, just to be safe.
It was the opinion of a number of people that "free with Debian only"
software wasn't really free software at all.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP Bruce@Pixar.com 510-215-3502
Finger bruce@master.Debian.org for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
Reply to: