Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> I don't. Please read item 4 again quite carfully. I had to tackle
> someone else who had a radical view of what the DFSG was and was not. To me
> the DFSG is the ideal philosophy. To me it states that well will produce
> open software *BUT* we acknolwdge that there is not only a right but a need
> for prorpietary and we support the *USERS* decision over our own ideals. I
> am not stuck on the definition of what is and is not free.
>
> > Then work on troll tech to release qt under a dfsg compliant
> > licence. Or work on the KDE folks to use something else besides QT.
>
> Why? It works for them, end of story. I also agree with you here,
> begrudgingly. It doesn't meet the standards set by the DFSG, it is not open,
> it is contrib or non-free.
So I take it you don't think Qt should go in the main distribution
becuase its not Open?
>
> > BTW, I quite agree with you when you say it is a shame. KDE
> > should never have used a non-free library. It is not too late for
> > them to change now (though I would not be rude enough to say this
> > on the KDE list; snce the decision is indeed theirs).
>
> I don't think it is a shame. What is a shame is people taken any "open"
> or "free" movement to such extremes. Let me explain it in simple terms.
>
[snip]
>
> 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.
And I agree completly.
But you still think that debian should remian completly open and not
include things like Qt in the main distribution even though they allow
people to
"develop for their product in the spirit of the GPL"?
It seams you more agree with me that you disagree however you still
think that debian should remain completly open at the sacrafice of not
having some really nice (and perhaps important steps into the acceptance
of linux as a serious OS against Windows) almost-free packages in the
main distribution?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: