On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:37:50PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: > > > If we're never seeing the code under a free license anyway, what have we > > to lose? > > Most of those checking out the code from TransGaming's CVS just want > to be able to get their Windows games to run in Linux for free (as in > beer). Personally, I think putting their ability to do so in jeopardy > just to make some ideological point that those users really won't even > care about is a little selfish, but perhaps that's just me. You are correct, but the fact remains that Transgaming does not care about free software unless it is on their terms. I guess one could argue that such a move as packaging winex-installer would indirectly violate the SC #4, because we know exactly how Transgaming will react to that, and that would potentially inconvenience Debian users. I guess a similar conclusion could be drawn regarding any non-free installers. If upstream responds to their creation by threatening to remove the material altogether, there simply isn't much to be done besides remove the installer package in compliance. Otherwise a SC violation is induced. > In addition, in a post to -legal earlier today[1] you opined that > software with a hostile upstream shouldn't be packaged in Debian. Following that rule is one potential solution to a different problem, as discussed in that thread, yes. > I don't see how packaging TransGaming's software against their express > wishes could possibly fail to turn them against us. I don't either. In fact, having had this discussion, it would not be possible even to plead ignorance. > Your wanting us to press ahead regardless does seem just a teensy bit > inconsistent, to say the least. I don't _want_ you to do anything. Hell, I don't even use winex. I was a subscriber until they balked about the LGPL change by WINE and responded by strictly limiting the release of any internally-developed source code; that move was directly contrary to their position upon which they gained a subscriber base. Until they change this policy, I don't plan to use their software or suggest it to anyone else for use. Because I don't particularly care about this piece of software, I mentioned a potential chain of reasoning that I hadn't seen in the discussion. bye, -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature