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 right? 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 bash? 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.
Description: PGP signature