Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
GEECS.org administrator, CSClub.cis.uoguelph.ca administrator, frosh, BComp
This .signature is dynamically rebuilt 1440 times a day.
It may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.
On 9 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> David Graham <email@example.com> writes:
> > Looking over this resolution, and the implications in it, I can't help but
> > feel we're taking a step back. We're taking a step away from where debian
> > needs to go. By closing debian to closed programmes, debian becomes
> > closed. Whether all software is GPL'd or MS-EULA'd, it doesn't matter.
> > Both restrict the system, and the further development for it.
> Your characterization of GPL software as closed is highly inaccurate,
> and in fact, can be proven any number of ways to be so.
Then state those "any number of ways". I believe rather firmly that my
statement holds. If you force debian to be only extremely "free" lisences,
then debian is no longer free (as in speech). It becomes one of the most
restrictive operating systems out there.
> Do you really, therefore, advocate letting any software into Debian,
> regardless of license, because we would be more "open" that way?
Yes. Debian is far from being ready to cut non-free loose. I've been using
debian since bo, and I would dearly miss it if non-free was cut free.
Why do you insist on being so zealotous that you would shoot yourself and
your favourite distribution in the foot, with no paramedics around?
Ask again in 4 years, we may be ready then.