Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Adam McKenna <email@example.com> writes:
> I'd really like to see a stat on how many packages in non-free are actually
> produced by a commercial entity; I'd be willing to wager that it's less than
> 10% of all of non-free. Most of the *useful* packages in non-free are
> almost-free, that is, they are bound by one particular restriction that
> makes them incompatible with the DFSG. I can name a few --
I'm thinking only of the packages which get cited as major
justifications for having non-free, things like netscape, acroread,
and so forth.
> The propnents of this measure are attempting to "spin" this into a
> "End commercial software vendors' free ride", argument when, except for
> a few packages, this is more a "we don't like your license, get the fuck out"
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm trying to extricate myself
from this ongoing flame war and only say things that are new
contributions or clarifications; I don't see the need to try and rebut
everything I disagree with and I'd encourage others to do the same.
If I gave the impression that my objection is to commerce or
commercial software per se, then that was inaccurate.
The objection is to certain kinds of licensing; the deliberate use of
non-free licenses in competition with free software is hostile. In
the case of pine, for example, it was deliberate and ill-motivated
hostility to free software that is the reason pine is not free, not
some minor and insignificant issue.
People aren't being told "we don't like your license so get out".
There are lots of licenses which I don't like but which are still free
software licenses (like the MPL, for example) and I have no intention
of trying to have that software kicked out just because I don't like
It's rather: "you are not supporting our goals, in fact, you are
hindering them, so we aren't going to help you". That has a
side-effect of perhaps inconveniencing some users. How exactly to
make that trade-off is a reasonable question for the developers to