Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Alessandro Rubini dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:20:34AM +0200]:
> (...)
> The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free
> software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those
> who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in
> their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And
> those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they
> are better at marketing than at developing.
>
> I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not "defective
> by design", but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem.
> Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make
> real use of the distro. But unless we know what this software package
> is, all of this discussion is moot.
One of the packages I maintain, Collabtive, is free by itself but
allows (promotes maybe?) the user to install non-free plugins. I ship
the package with this patch:
https://sources.debian.net/src/collabtive/2.0%2Bdfsg-5/debian/patches/plugin_disclaimer/
That is (so you don't have to refer to the patch itself), the plugins
lister is prefixed by the following message:
Note that, while Collabtive itself is completely Free Software,
plugins are propietary extras, produced and marketed by Open
Dynamics, the authors of Collabtive.
The Collabtive Debian package does not endorse in any way the
usage of plugins — They might enhance your Collabtive experience,
but they are completely outside Debian's scope.
The debated situation seems similar to me: Debian should not knowingly
ship a bug. If at all, I'd patch it away and add a disclaimer stating
that the software has the five user limitation removed, but requesting
a voluntary donation in case it is used for "professional" use.
Reply to: