[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free

On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 10:45:44PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 06:05:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:51:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > Should Debian resources be used to make a buck for maintainers?
> > > No.
> > > > Do we need policy against this sort of thing?
> > > Yes.
> > Then I propose that maintainers working for companies that use and
> > advertise Debian based products (VA Linux, Stormix, Corel, Progeny and
> > HelixCode spring to mind) should be publically chastised and removed
> > from the project if they don't quit their day jobs, or get their companies
> > to refocus on, say, RedHat.
> i'm confused. to try to put it simpler:
> 1) helix and redhat are making money from software that could be in `main'
>    (perfect, imho :)

Well, the only response I've seen to the threads trying to get HelixCode
.deb's in main seem to have been something like "there are some copyright
problems on the images" which seems like they can't be included in main.

> 2) what if making money from software that can only be in `non-free' ?

Oh, my mistake.

I also should've proposed that all maintainer's whose day jobs involve
them working on or with commerical proprietry software should be
expelled too.

> is my understanding right? if it's right then what's the answer?

``An ye harm none, do what ye will'' comes to mind.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpqzfYhAFyAi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: