On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:05:52AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Oh suuuuuure. "We are all about freedom, but please no religional > stuff. Oh, and while we are at, get away with porn. And alcohol is bad > too, anything that can help people there, get away....." > Thats not how it works, we cant ask anyone putting things in main to not > discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our > own. This is a false analogy. We can, do, and *should* discriminate regarding the software that we distribute. It's discrimination when we say that some license terms are acceptable for main and some aren't; we discriminate when we say that a piece of software is too buggy to support and kick it out of the archive; we even practice a form of discrimination against specific upstreams who we don't trust to act in good faith under the law. The issue isn't whether it's consistent with our ideals to be selective about (discriminate against) the license terms of works included in non-free. Rather, it's that there's no hope of us getting a consensus on what kinds of license terms should be prohibited in non-free. Everyone has their own opinion, and many of those are mutually exclusive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature