Re: Open Hardware was: what harm can MS do to free software anyway?
On 8 Mar 1998 bruce@va.debian.org wrote:
> > > they can destroy our freedom from the hardware side, which is why the
> > > Open Hardware Initiative (I think that's the right name, it's one of
> > > Bruce Perens' inventions) is more important than it might first appear...
> >
> > And gee has that been a dismal marketing failure. How about more time
> > spent marketing this instead of worrying about the name of the forthcoming
> > management tool.
> >
> > You'd think that with so many companies supporting the initiative it'd be
> > extremely successfull ...
>
> Pardon me for not being immediately aware of what contribution you are
> currently making to Debian. Are you offering to help with Open Hardware?
> If so, Please contact its director, Vincent Renardias. I believe he has a
> mailing list for the topic, too.
The web page still says:
If you have questions about the program, please write to Bruce Perens at
<bruce@debian.org>.
Shouldn't this be changed if you aren't the person to ask questions about
anymore?
> I am currently busy with Netscape and other issues.
Of course you are, and you are doing good things there. But I have one
question about section 5.2 in the draft NPL, version 0.90. Why is this
section included at all? If they want to use code that they have written
themselves in their web server and sell it, they don't need this section.
They wrote the code and they can distribute it under any license they
like. Or do they want to include code that is submitted by others into the
web server? Only in that case they will need this section, IMO.
The license may be DFSG compliant, but IMHO section 5.2 makes it a whole
lot less 'free' than the GPL.
Remco
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: