Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

[cjw44@flatline.org.uk (Colin Watson)]

Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt <kenneth@bitnisse.dk> wrote:
>On Thursday 08 March 2001 22:33, Scott Dier wrote:
>> * Corrin Lakeland <lakeland@freki.otago.ac.nz> [010308 15:10]:
>> > PS: personally I support the author's intention and think it is a pity if
>> > it has to go into non-free.
>>
>> So what, bend the DFSG for intrepretation?  Christ, whats next? Pigs
>> flying around?
>
>Why does these comments have to be aired? It's like changing the topic to 
>"flame-bait"...
>I, too, think that the author was in the right mind when adding that extra 
>license. And I also think that it would be a pity if it went in non-free. 
>Nobody suggested bending the DFSG, it was just suggested that we feel 
>sympathetic to the reasons.

For all that I dislike censorware, the author needs to understand that
conditions like this do *not* belong in licences. I don't think his
goals are compatible with the project's until he does.

What next? "You may not use this gcc to compile censorware programs?"
"You may not compile things I disapprove of against this glibc?" If you
have any contact with the author, please try to make him understand.

Thanks,

-- 
Colin Watson                                     [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]