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

Re: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Please consider that RMS created the LGPL specificly to allow glibc to be
> > installed on, and used by, non-free OS's like Sun. The whole purpose was
> > to allow more free software to be run on these machines.
> This is true; however, the LGPL is now 'deprecated' by the FSF, as from
> their point of view there is no longer a need to run GNU software on top
> of non-free kernels, and therefore the LGPL is no longer a key part of
> their strategy.

So the fact that gmp and several other non-glibc libraries are currently
being release under the LGPL is of no import?

RMS has his own ideas about where the LGPL is useful and where it isn't.
The fact is that the LGPL exists, and is a viable license, recognized by
Debian and most other distributors. It _does_ serve to put free software
in propietary environs, so whether you identify this as a "purpose" of the
license or not, it is the defacto use of this license.

> > This implies that RMS _is_ in favor of having free software run on a
> > non-free OS. (Although he is perfectly able to act in an inconsistant
> > fashion.)
> He is in favor of running free software only.  Anything else along the
> way is a stepping stone to reaching that goal. :)

Well, no proprietary software is included in this port, is it? The fact
that the "only" place that it will be useful is on an M$ OS is the actual
point of this exercise, isn't it?

> > If I understand, this port allows most/all Debian software to be run on an
> > M$ OS. This sounds like just what the Doctor ordered ;-)
> And no one has said that the porting cannot continue; that would be
> rather hypocritical coming from a group who stands so strongly behind
> the DFSG, since the DFSG also protects the user's right to run the
> software on Windows (and many other foolish things ;).  The only issue
> is whether such a port should bear the Debian trademark.  Since this
> port is not currently operating under the Debian mantle, the Debian
> trademark should not be used without official permission.

As I understood the "license" on the Debian trademark, the only
requirement was that the trademark be used only for Debian software
products. Seems to me that this project completely satisfies these


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-                                                                    _-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769     _-
_-       Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road          _-
_-       e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308        _-
_-                                                                    _-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
              available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/

Reply to: