Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?
Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Thursday 08 March 2001 22:33, Scott Dier wrote:
>> * Corrin Lakeland <email@example.com> [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
>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.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]