Re: New idea for finessing patent issues (was: lame (again!))
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
>On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> >2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
>> >thus does not "stay true to our ideals".
>>
>> It can be worded that Debian disagrees strongly with the idea of patented
>> software, but pragmatically is providing it because of a percieved
>> utility. Sort of like RMS's "non-free" question in base, except a bit
>> longer and more preachy :)
>
>Yeah, but we don't ship non-free stuff in main. We could just as well
>add a similar click though mechanism for non-free stuff as well: "The
>license for this software prohibits x, y, and z. If you swear you won't
>do any of those things, it's just as good a free software".
I said just about this in the previous paragraph. I was mostly expanding
on the idea here. In fact, I see it as well within the scope of Debian to
preach about the evils of non-DFSG free software upon installation via
debconf.
>Steve
>
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: