Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community
--On Wed, Dec 2, 1998 3:11 pm -0800 "Joseph Carter" <knghtbrd@debian.org>
wrote:
> Beyond that, what's expressed in the dfsg2 is unreasonable. The next
apache
> being non-free? Or tex? The DFSG2 is flawed by design since its design
is
> to remove the BSD advertising clause and various licenses' patch clauses.
> If you believe Debian can exist without those, take away everything other
> than the BSD utilities with the advertising clause and any software which
> has a patch clause--including tex--and go and try to build a package like
> bash. You can't do it.
That's an unfair characterisation of Ian's deprecation of the advertising
clause.
Since the regents of UCB are not going to release another version of the BSD
utils, it won't be 'kicked' back into life. And no one else has the power
to remove the advertising clause. So Apache is the only affected piece of
software. And I do think that the advertising clause is unpleasant.
However, unwilling to make apache non-free, we'll probably have to live with
it.
I also strongly disapprove of patch licenses, including that which
apparently Knuth has put of TeX (although there was a little confusion over
that one). Maybe we have to put up with that too, though..
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: