Re: afbackup now nearly GPL-ed
> On Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Sven Rudolph wrote:
> > Albert Fluegel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > afbackup is actually under unstable and non-free.
> > > I don't comment the first term here ;-) but the
> > > non-free is not true actually. It's nearly completely
> > > GPL-ed.
> > The server side of this backup system must not be ported
> > to any Microsoft-based "operating-system".
> > IMHO the last sentence conflicts with this part of the DFSG:
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
> > program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
> > restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being
> > used for genetic research.
> > So according to Debian classification afbackup still belongs into
> > non-free.
> > I'd really like to see afbackup's licence conform with the DFSG; on
> > the other hand it is your software, and I'm in no position to demand
> > something from you.
> I'm the maintainer of the afbackup debian package which is quite out
> of date presently. I'm working on the new release 2.11.1.
> I would be really happy if you could rethink your term about the port
> to Microsoft-based operating systems. IMHO your program would be a
> nice extension to the other available backup options in debian.
Ok, you won (at least, you think, you did).
No more restrictions on version 2.11 or higher.
But, when i find the time, i'll explain to you, why IMHO
the DFSG, section 6 only theoretically provides more
equality to all possible users, but in the *real world*,
we are unfortunately living in, it works in fact for
a certain huge and rich company starting with M.
Hint: I heard important and decision-making people
(even project-leaders) enthusiastically saying things like>:
"Windows-NT supports the bash !" "Microsoft supports TCL/TK !!!"
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .