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

Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> 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.]

[1] 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.

[2] 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.


Reply to: