Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community
Joseph Carter <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
[*Sigh*, I didn't really want to get involved in this, but your
continuous `mistakes' are annoying to say the least.]
 The advertising clause is carefully worded so as not to designate
all BSD software as non-free; IWJ is not stupid, he's not going to
make GNU libc non-free. It affects software where the copyright
holder(s) is(/are) actively making new releases _and_ making a
conscious choice to retain the offensive advertising clause.
 It's not TeX which would be affected, it's a subset of TeX, and
it's _definitely_ nothing like all of TeTeX. AFAICR from the last
time I built bash, the only thing it requires that would be relevant
is makeinfo, which is part of TeTeX but is very much GPLed.