Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
>> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
>> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
>
> Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from
> distributing isos compiled from the source.
So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that.
> How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant.
> And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal
> that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't
> make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters
> decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution.
I think the constitution says that "plain AGPL" is OK.
> In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into
> main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't
> that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the
> non-free repository. Being "only" in non-free is nothing to be ashamed
> of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with
> invariant sections.
Do you want to put free software into nonfree?
> Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as
> obsessed with freedom as Debian. :)
Do you mean freedom as in beer?
I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of
software.
With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.
--
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl/
Reply to: