On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > They began distributing binaries to a large audience *after* they were > notified of the problems. This gives the impression that they don't > care about GPL compliance, and want to gain publicity *now*, > exploiting the "GNU" and "Solaris" trademarks. So this would be much the same as the DCC Alliance? Shouldn't we then take the view that as fellow free software travellers we should discuss the concerns in confidence? Or is it more akin to Debian's pre-2001 efforts on GPL compliance, where we'd frequently find ourselves accidently distributing binaries without corresponding source, due to a lack of infrastructure to track which source was necessary? In which case, shouldn't we encourage people to make their best efforts, but acknowledge the shortcomings and trust that things will be improved in time, and perhaps further note that that will be faster with our help? Or perhaps it's more akin to Debian's current handling of installer images, which aren't guaranteed to have their sources available? Should we drop everything to ensure that env-pressed 1.09's source is available for the 20051018 unstable images, instead of just 1.10's? In which case shouldn't we be being circumspect about mentioning the problem, and quietly working to fix it, and thus both retaining our credibility and strengthening our commitment to free software? I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature