Re: DFSG2: The patch exception
> Either it's free or it's not free. If it's not free, it does not belong in
> debian, making exceptions and putting it in would dilute our traditional
> stand on free software.
That is exactly the point.
Please don't think I want to argue with you. All of my software work
I release free ala GPL. And, I don't particularly like TeX. What we
have is a problem of semantics that we need to clear up. If TeX isn't
free according to our definition, then we need to treat it as
non-free.
> > The point is that TeX is a big package that many people depend on.
>
> If you truely belive TeX's license is non-free, you're acting directly
> contrary to the goals of debian by allowing it in on an exception because
> there will never be any motivation to fix the problem.
However, some things may be sufficiently free that we can make them
available for our systems. Perhaps we won't put the on the CDs, but
we can make the software available.
I am not making a proposal. I think it would be hasty for me to do
so. Instead, I think we need to start the meta conversation about how
we as an organization intend to address the confusion over DFSG.
Ian's intention in rewriting DFSG is unquestionably sincere. Let's
find a way to use the energy present here to strengthen the Debian
organization.
Reply to: