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

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

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 10:22:36AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 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.


Obviously you think it's immoral to use Debian developers to be involved
in anything non-free.

Obviously you want to change the way things are, to match your morals.

You haven't presented any good, objective reason for this. This is unlike
John's proposal for removing non-free in totality, which was at least backed
up by a couple of practical benefits that the supporters believed would be
gained by the removal of non-free. Whether those would happen or not was
debatable, but they were still presented. Nothing similar seems to have
been done here.

So as far as I can see, my statement stands.

> > 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. 

Yeah, sorry, I keep forgetting we're all here for completely altruistic
reasons, and we should've given all our earthly posessions (except our
computers and broadband links of course!) to the poor by now.

> 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.

So, again, how does this manage to not apply to Corel, VA, Stormix,
Progeny, HelixCode, Linuxcare, and everyone else making money off the
backs of our users? How does it manage not to apply to the requests
for donations to SPI we ocassionally make?

> 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.

As opposed to inserting random "ha ha"'s in my responses? 

If you've got a point, argue for it. Don't just state it and expect
everyone to smile and agree and do what you want.

The licensing of Debian patches is fairly unclear: it's often just
assumed to be roughly the same as whatever the package it's on, or maybe
a bit free-er. Sometimes it's stated, sometimes it isn't. It's worthwhile
clearing this up, whether we add the requirement that the Debian specific
stuff must be DFSG-free or not.

OTOH, saying it's okay for developers to upload random shareware from
the net, but not their own shareware reeks of pointless holier-than-thou


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: pgpDIUo6ymc88.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: