Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Okay, fine. Let's consider the case in which TPM is "hard" to apply:
> Then isn't it an effective barrier to further modification and
> redistribution (i.e. non-free)?
It's a practical problem, not necessarily something non-free.
> I stand by my opinion that TPM is intrinsically simpler than binary
> [...] After all, there is a standing assumption that programs are
> written by expert "developers" who are not regarded as being in the same
> class as mere "users".
> [...] But content creation is not a technical specialty. [...]
The above assumptions are flawed, in my experience (I've used TPM
more complex than compilation; I was no expert when I started
writing programs; and putting out a radio magazine show is surely
a technical specialty - well, if you want to do it right).
> [...] It creates an incentive to keep the TPM simple to apply.
While noble, that is not necessarily any more free than requiring
distribution to always be in a shar.
> [...] So the anti-TPM
> clause is necessary to preserve copyleft, and Debian really needs to
> recognize that in order to remain the flagship free software
> distribution that it is.
Yeah, and Debian really needs to recognise patent-poison-pill clauses,
anti-commercial clauses and distributing Netscape in main(!)
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct