Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 08:58:24PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Item #4 of the Debian social contract:
> "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> community. We will place their interests first in our priorities."
> But I don't think that anyone should *EVER* dictate what other people
> shoudl and should not use based solely on whether or not it is open or
> proprietary. I don't think people should place a negative stigma on
> proprietery software. It is not a shame that Trolltech released QT the way
> it did. They chose to eat. However, they did come up with a creative
> licensing scheme which allows people to develop for their product in the
> spirit of the GPL and they have protected that license arrangement in case of
> their company being bought out or disbanding.
>
> There is *NO* shame in that or using it.
*WE* build the Debian distribution. *WE* think that we can serve the needs
of our users *BEST* when we have control over the source code and the right
to distribute patched source code and modified binaries.
I certainly can't speak for all developers, but I feel confident that I have
much support in the both sentences above.
What if a binary-only program has a big trojan horse in it? How can we
control the security and consistency and quality with proprietary software?
We can't.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: