Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:25:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
> > > backwards from "we want this stuff to be in main, freedoms or not"?
> > Well, I would start with "we want this stuff in main" and work from
> > there; consider what freedoms we reasonably need and what we can
> > reasonably expect.
> Sounds like "we want this in main, freedoms or not". I want it in
Actually, it's not. You'll note that I omitted the words "freedoms or
not", because that's not what I intend.
Frankly I can't spot the flaw in this approach. In general we want to
distribute all useful bitstreams (programs, documentation and firmware)
in Debian. However we are forced to disqualify the ones that don't have
adequate freedoms. It's a subtractive process. We disqualify licenses
that don't provide adequate freedom, rather than just allowing the ones
with maximum freedom.
The GPL isn't as free as it could be. It doesn't allow me to reuse GPL
code in my proprietary program, or even under another perfectly free
open-source license! The BSD license offers more freedoms. We
consider the GPL to provide adequate freedom for Debian, though
not it does not provide maximum freedom by any means.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>