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

Re: Clarification of WineX packaging request

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 08:10:20PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:26:27AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If you yourself share this opinion of Transgaming's copy protection
> > support, on behalf of which developers are you speaking here?  I would
> > also have assumed that this position follows from the Social Contract.

> I don't believe I made any statements about my opinions regarding copy 
> protection in this thread.

In Message-ID <[🔎] 20020527092314.GS17409@flounder.net>, you stated:

> Don't get me wrong, I think what Transgaming is doing is totally bogus.

You were not referring to the copy protection mechanisms, then (which
was part of the context of your reply), but specifically to the
licensing ambiguity?

> > Even if you believe that copyright protection for software is good (as
> > many DDs do), it's hard for me to reconcile supporting the Social
> > Contract with the position that copy protection is a reasonable means
> > of copyright enforcement.

> We're talking about Transgaming's bogus pseudo-free license.  What does that
> have to do with copy protection?

Message-ID: <[🔎] 87g00g3l2t.fsf@becket.becket.net>

> But Debian is opposed to things like copy protection, DLLs that can't
> be redistributed, and, well, your decision to hoard software.

Which was the message you were repyling to.  Although there's certainly
a wider range of opinions about whether non-redistributable DLLs and
software hoarding are absolute evils (which was the main thrust of your
objection, I gather), can it not at least be said that the first claim
-- copyright protection mechanisms are bad -- is universally held by

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp5IlEE47hE3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: