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