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

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL



On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 06:25:40AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling, (i.e. a license even stricter than Debian's) I'd
> love to help out. One thing I want to code is a pico clone called PiClone,
> and a PINE clone called (oh so creatively) PINE-Clone. I know a lot of
> newbies favor this software (I myself got hopelessly addicted to it way
> back when), and I'd love to contribute it towards the cause of an (as)
> un-corporate-corruptable (as possible) OS...

Might I suggest first that you consider why mpg123 is in non-free?

Think about it just a second.  May not be used commercially.


The GPL permits Corel to do whatever they want as long as they don't
violate the GPL.  I'm not convinced they aren't doing so, however by
preventing someone like Corel from distributing your software would still
make it non-free.  Furthermore, should you slap a restriction of this sort
onto a Linux distribution, you would be infringing on the Copyright of
everyone with GPL code in your dist, at the very least because you would
be guilty of EXACTLY what you (and I, and others) have accused Corel,
adding extra cruft to your dist which was a slap in the face to the GPL
and free software in general.

Beware fanaticism.  You try to push people too hard to use only free
software and you're going to end up with a pile of non-free software and
possibly (more than one) lawsuit.  Don't be surprised if the FSF isn't
among those suing.


If however your (IMO not very clearly worded) message was indicating you
would like a dist which has something a bit tougher than our DFSG, what
would you change about the DFSG?  The patch clause?  We've talked about
removing that--of course you could kiss tetex goodbye.  The advertising
clause?  We were there too--say goodbye to Apache.  How about removing the
ability for the software to be written by a commercial entity?  What
software would that cause to disappear?  Hmm...


Perhaps before suggesting that the DFSG is too lenient you should actually
read it first and second figure out what exactly it allows that is too
lenient.  I admit I'm curious, however I'm more or less convinced by the
tone of your message (and all of your messages in this thread) that what
you really want is to make your distribution completely non-free by the
standards set by the DFSG (and consiquently those set by the FSF too..)

-- 
- Joseph Carter         GnuPG public key:   1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43
- knghtbrd@debian.org   20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<RoboHak> hmm, lunch does sound like a good idea
<Knghtbrd> would taste like a good idea too

Attachment: pgpwgii_4ya_v.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: