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

Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community

On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:08:14AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:

> > Sure it's unpleasant.  But it's not unreasonable.  If someone was making
> > a version of Debian designed for a server and one of their points was
> > something about Apache, they'd have to have down with the rest of the
> > small print a little line about the origins of apache.  And it's more
> > than just Apache that this applies to.
> It's not unreasonable, no.  Neither is it unreasonable to ask people to pay
> real money for software you've spent real time developing.  And yet, we both
> believe in free software... (don't we?).

The difference being of course that one is free software and the other can
be but frequently is not.

> > Of course, we realize that we can't do this because it'd break Debian as a
> > distribution, so we have a little caveat that we can compromise on our
> > principles whenever we feel a package is important enough that the DFSG
> > doesn't matter because it's a must have, like apache and tex...
> Hmm... well.  Yes.  It is a compromise, isn't it?  I'd rather software
> didn't have advertising clauses, or patch clauses.  Should I not admit that
> fact?  I then go on to agree with you that we can't disallow these in the
> DFSG, since doing so would not give us a workable distribution.  I'm
> certainly not suggesting that we apply the standard in an uneven fashion. 
> Certainly, if TeX is allowed the patch clause, then any software must be
> allowed the patch clause.  I'm just saying that I wish we didn't need the
> patch clause.

The current DFSG says the patch clause is a compromise, and it could say the
same about the advertising clause.

> > And we'll just compromise our morals, our commitment, and our
> > credibility away.  Congratulations Debian, you're the next Eric Raymond. 
> > Well meaning and with high principles, but ready to compromise whenever
> > we think we need to.  I cannot find this acceptable in any way, shape,
> > or form.
> I'm confused by you here.  What is your suggestion?  We don't compromise,
> and hence chuck out TeX and apache?

If we are saying from the outset we will accept things we'd prefer not to
have as we do now, it's different than if we decide to adopt something which
DOESN'T have provision for it and then take things that don't fit it.

I'm not real hot on saying one thing and doing another.

Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgpvcwGxqHNOZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: