Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
>
> > Raul Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, I didn't mean to say non-GPL. Want I mean to say is that I
> > > > think companies should be rewarded for distributing there programs
> > > > freely even if they are not complete free by debian's standard.
> > >
> > > You want us to reward companies by violating their licenses?
> > >
> > > Sorry, but you are very wrong -- this is not a good way to be nice to a
> > > company.
> > >
> >
> > In what way would including it on the cd violate the license? If you
> > mean that you modified the archive well you already did that when you
> > packaged it.
>
> I believe he is refering to the fact that the software you speak of is
> licensed in a distribution restrictive fashion. These companies have used
> this legal restriction on your freedoms to demand money without delivering
> product. They are not likely to look kindly on you assertion that their
> sofware is "almost" free, and you will find yourself before a judge
> explaining why you thought it was ok to steal this corporate product.
>
What companies. Do you mean Troll Tech Qt? What? No I will not
include software where the license puts some sort of legal restriction
on including there software on a cd as part of a distribution.
> >
> > Now it does violate the Debian Social Contract. Thus it will never
> > happen. However just putting it on a CD would not violate the license.
> >
> Ignorance is no excuse under the law. Yes, you would violate the license.
>
How!!!! What!!!!
> > And I don't agree however it is clear that I don't have the same
> > belifies that the majority of the Debian develpment has. It is really a
> > moral issue now.
>
> At its roots it always was a moral issue. But it is an issue with Legal
> consequences as well, which for many of us makes it the pragmatically
> correct thing to do.
See above.
>
> We support such software as best we can, by making .deb packages when
> we are allowed and otherwise making the underlying system responsive to
> the needs of these programs as well as the free stuff. (this comes under
> the heading of quality from my POV)
>
> So, while the foundations of this "rigid" position on freeness comes from
> a moral "high ground", there are practical considerations as well which
> reinforce our moral position as not only being just, but also very
> usefull.
>
> I hold up as proof:
>
> 0.93-R6 about 100 packages
> 1.1 more
> 1.2 more
> 1.3 almost 1000 package (around 976 in main)
> 2.0 will be over 1500 packages.
>
> During this same period of time, contrib and non-free have not grown more
> than 2 or 3 times in size.
>
> Look at any other distribution, semi free like RedHat, strong components
> of Proprietary software in Caldera, all the way up to M$ software, and
> none of those products has increased it features base the way that a
> "totally free" distribution like Debian has been able to do.
>
> I attribute all of our success to the underlying philosophy expressed in
> the DFSG, the Debian Manifesto, and the GNU Manifesto (each of which
> predate the DFSG), and the fact that there are enough people who
> understand what this means to impliment it.
>
I am not not going to aregue with you here.. Becuase this is getting to
close to a flame war.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: