Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 01:29:04PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > The only logical conclusion is to (<agenda>drop non-free or</agenda>)
> > > disallow shareware in non-free.
> > Or, as I said, make it against Debian policy for developers to be
> > in such fragrant conflict of interest.
> That's not possible to pursue consequently. What if I'd package sharefont,
> and Christoph would package my shareware. What if we'd work for the same
> I considered the rule: "No-one must package his own commerical software for
> non-free", but it's too weak, as the hypothetical exploit above shows.
> We would only encourage people to find ways around this rule, and "do it in
> the dark".
If the Debian member rulebook said we couldn't upload packages
that profit us directly to the detriment of our users
(i.e. conflict of interest), then I think developers could be
trusted to abide by it (or face sanctions such as expulsion,
etc). All we need to do is make it a rule.
(e.g. my job as a governemnt employee is such that I'm obliged to
declare _any_ conflict of interest. The rules do spell out all
of what those might be.)
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/