On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Anyway, whenever some form of a work is the preferred one for > > modifications (i.e.: source form), but, at the same time, is > > inconvenient to distribute, well, the work is inconvenient to > > distribute in a Free manner! This is an unfortunate technical > > obstacle to freeing works and should be removed by technology > > improvements: we should not surrender and lower our freeness > > standards in order to accept sourceless works as if they were Free. > > That's not a technical obstacle, that's a "we're stupid to recommend > that the author do something horribly inconvenient" obstacle. Maybe we are stupid to promote Free Software, then... I prefer being a stupid Free Software supporter, than being a smart proprietary software advocate. > If the > work is inconvenient to distribute free, then we should be telling the > author "distributing it free is probably not what you want to do". I don't think the Debian Project (or debian-legal contributors) should promote non-free software. > > Besides, the DFSG don't define source code as the preferred form for > modification. I am not aware of any better and more widely accepted definition. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgps9lYHNjOUV.pgp
Description: PGP signature