Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free
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.
> > Thanks for the laugh. Ha ha ha.
> > If you don't see the difference between:
> > - Getting paid by a compagny to work on Debian to the benifit or
> > our users
> > and
> > - Packaging software for non-free as a Debian developers and
> > demanding that users pay you.
> > Then there's _no_ point arguing with you. So I won't.
> Well, if you want to go on a moral crusade for no good reason,
Colour me confused, as you seem to partly agree with me below...
> then I
> do see a point arguing with you, so I will.
> Note that it was just the text quoted above I was arguing against.
It's not productive to argue against my position based on the
summary sentence taken out of context.
> someone were to package their own shareware, I wouldn't have a problem
> with it,
That's where we differ. I guess since you disagree, that must
mean I'm on a `moral crusade for no good reason'. It would be
different if you agreed with me; then it would be okay.
> eg. I don't have a problem with people making money from what
> they do for Debian, at all.
> However, this is apparently more of a case of someone distributing
> their packaging with a non-free license. That's certainly surprising
> and unexpected and unusual. Is it the only such case?
I don't know. He has already argued that it's not the Debian
packaging that is non-free, but his own packaging as upstream
> This seems to go against the social contract ("When we write new
> components of the Debian system we will license them as free software"
> seems like it should apply to packaging stuff), but not for the
> reason above ("Should Debian resources be used to make a buck for the
Consistency with the social contract is exactly why I think
uploading one's own shareware is wrong.
> Also, this only says that Christoph "expects" you to pay $10. Not that
> you're legally required to if you want to use/distribute/whatever
> the .deb. So I'm not sure if this actually even matters.
I think that as Debian developers we should be held to a higher
standard than fuzzy loopholes in licensing.
> Example policy forbidding this would be to require all .diff.gz and
> .tar.gz stuff to be distributable under the terms of the GPL (as well
> as any other terms that might be necessary, eg BSD or Artistic).
That's a good idea.
I'd just go further and `expect' (ha ha) developers to not even
`request' payment to themselves for the use of any software that
they have uploaded to Debian. If I thought that most developers
agreed with you that I'm on a `moral crusade for no good reason',
I'd probably quit Debian for being hypocritical. We are not here
to make money on the backs of our users.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but you don't have to resort
to first sarcasm and later name-calling to make your point.