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

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.
>                                                                    If
> 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
(available separately).  

> 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
> maintainer").

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.


Reply to: