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

Re: Bug#147303: ITP: winex -- A DESCRIPTION

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 09:51:50AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:48:08AM -0400, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:45:41PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > > > The ITP says that the source is in sourceforge.  Isn't sourceforge
> > > > restricted to free software projects?
> > > Apparently not. (I wondered this, too.)
> > SF.net accpets free software and SF-approved non-free software.
> > NOTE : I don't care about games, but it's scary to read from someone with a
> > d.o address : 'don't package it, respect their proprietary work based on a
> > free product developed by another company'.
> Yet the conclusion is the same as when people say "don't package it, we
> don't want more non-free software bloating our archive"...  Although I'm
> not 100% comfortable with the stance Transgaming has taken, they haven't
> done anything that they weren't allowed to do by law and that the
> copyright holders on Wine explicitly agreed to in their license.

No That's not the same. His argument for not packaging it is not to
limit the non-free part of debian, his argument is that to respect a
not-written clause saying "it's free (as in freedom) until you try to
use your right to freedom".

I respect them as long as they do what they say, and say ...
If their license allows stuff that they don't want to allow, they need
to use another license. The purpose of a license is not to be
PR-friendly. If they are doing proprietary stuff, fine. But don't claim
it is free.

If their license say "you can package it" and someone want to package it
for debian/non-free then he should do it.

> BTW, I believe the current maintainer of the Debian Wine package is a
> Transgaming employee.  You might consider this another reason not to
> package WineX, if doing so would engender ill will with the author: does
> having WineX available to us in the archive for a little while really
> justify creating a conflict of interest for the maintainer that (one 
> presumes) would be maintaining the mainline packages in the long term?

I believe it is a bad reason to not package winex.
I repeat that I don't want to harm transgaming and I believe that they
will not consider this package treatening, and the winex-light name
could eventually be used (but this is the decision of the packager).


> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer

Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8  F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E

In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats.
--English proverb

Attachment: pgpPuLTssbcxF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: