Re: [gnu.misc.discuss,gnu.emacs.gnus] Free software: Packagers vs Developers
Stephane Bortzmeyer <email@example.com> writes:
> On Friday 2 July 1999, at 19 h 1, the keyboard of Per Abrahamsen
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > If you read my initial four suggestions, the three last were simply
> > about making that distinction clear, and discourage hidden forks.
> Yes, but I disagree that any patch is a 'hidden fork'. You leave us
> with only two alternatives, which is not a real choice!
It is not me, it is logic. However, if you read my suggestions (and
the following discussions on gnu.misc.discuss) there _are_ changes
that can be done by the packager. The necessary interoperability
changes and critical bug fixes.
> Either to respect the Sacred Code and to touch nothing or to fork
> and to start another project, which is overkill for most changes
> Debian packagers do.
I suspect _most_ changes packagers do fall in one of the above categories.
> If you want so, write the licence in that way (it does not prevent it from
> being free, at least for Debian).
Apart from the fact that I hate the "it is legal so it is ethical"
implicit in the above, doing so would have the practical consequence
that you could use no GPL'ed software as that would be an "additional