[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community

On Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 09:51:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Yes, the timing is really bad. I was also somewhat stumbed by the
> > draft.  
> Yet, if Troll Tech is reacting to our analysis of the KDE issue (GPL + Qt
> licenses), it's not really our timing that's the issue here, it's theirs.
> We're still on the same track we were earlier (we're paying more attention
> to copyright issues), and they're reacting to us.  People were noting
> the problems with GPL + Qt years ago, and it's not our fault that they
> waited until we got around to cleaning our house.

I'm told Debian was part of the consideration, but it was hardly the reason
for it.  I'm also told that some inside Troll Tech were trying for the QPL
long before now.

> In other words:  Let's let this DFSG revision stand or fall on its
> own merits.

Yes I agree, let the DFSG2 succeed or fail on its own.  I mean it only means that
Apache becomes non-free next version, licenses that RMS has said are free
become suddenly non-free, and the document itself becomes a much too long
mass of legalspeak which requires interpretation and brings up the same
interpretation problems we have with licenses.  What does it matter that
people like me were sold on Debian because of the clear, simple, no nonsense
definition of Free Software and determination to stick to those principles

We're not afraid to alienate users, developers, and ISVs are we?  We're not
afraid to break the distribution by moving base/required packages such as
bash to contrib because tex can no longer remain in main either.  Who needs

And of course, anything that is patented anywhere or is restricted anywhere
because some government needs to get a clue (can we say US and/or France
with crypto?) can never be truly free!  Of course, when Emacsland bans vi
and clones, vi becomes no longer truly free..  When the US decides debuggers
are tools used to violate copyrights, that won't be free either.  When
Microsoft patents the concept of the operating system kernel for NT5, well,
Debian will become non-free totally.

Some of that can happen, some of it probably won't.  Point is, do you really
want a new version of a software which hasn't changed at all to suddenly be
non-free?  Do you want a core piece of software RMS considers part of the
GNU system to be non-free?  Do you want to let any idiot who gets into power
someplace to dictate what is non-free?  If you think so, then the DFSG2
should stand.  If like me, you think that's absolutely ludicrous, probably
you want this to FAIL and FAIL SOON and FAIL MISERABLY.

Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgpmWrC54Ijls.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: