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

Re: Darwin Streaming Server

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 05:17:41AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 11:46:02AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> > I think he did mixed up the two terms :) 
> Nope actually I did not. I was speaking for the Software industriy
> incooperating Open Technologies. I dont want to blame that. If I would have
> found the extreme position of RMS valid, I would have used to work for the
> FSF or the Gnu Project, but I prefered to go along with Debian, because of
> the much friendier Open Source definition.

I wasn't taking about Open Source. I can write a piece of code and restrict it that no one can change it without infrming me, all patches
go back to me, etc. etc. Then it's still open source. I was talking about _free_ software [not necessarly freeware or "for free"]- has
_free_ source. IMHO, Debian should have a clear definition of _free_ or have a line in Packages file that would show what license the
program is under.

> > Anyway, what is wrong with using the mentioned website [GNU def. of free] and to be clear, I'm NOT
> > talking about GPL. Why not GNU definition of free and if something doesn't comply just put it in the non-free section - the reason is
> > menitoned in my original post.
> The question is, why we should do that? Debian was the root source for the
> Open Source movement. There is a certification program associated with that
> movement and a open definition. Should we give up all that, even if the
> definition already existed while we created the Social Contract.. should we
> give that up and use the FSF Definitions? (Perhaps I missed it, but where
> are the Pros for that switch? Wehere is the need to change anything?)

GNU was actually one of the creators of Debian - they helped Debian take its first steps. Anyway, a proper definition of _free_ would allow
easier classification of software into main, contrib and non-free sections. And again, being in non-free would not mean you can't use it!
But, right now, I think that the best solution is to have a line in Packages something like

License: GPL, LGPL, .... [all free licenses or the most commonly used licenses]


License: Other

and Other would just mean to read the license of the software carefully before using it in your software or whatever. It would make things
a lot easier for people trying to find software [like library or whatever] that fits their needs.

And since Packages is compressed, this shouldn't increase the size of the compressed file by much. What does everyone think?


Reply to: