Re: why not replace individual programs?
Now you got a point. I just made a mistake, based on the examples people
gave, all that stuff seemed propietary software. I was wrong. Anyway,
my point is still valid for non-free software as well. It is just one
step required for non-free software to become propietary in some cases.
i.e.: wine. It had some kind of home-made license and then went to the
BSD license. The guy owning wine could just sell wine to any
company, and nobody would be in position to do nothing about it.
Brian Mays <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Pablo Baena) writes:
> > I'm not hardly following the thread, somebody probably already
> > mentioned this, anyway: stop trying to find replaces for propietary
> > software as a reason for not supporting it.
> I would like to end one fallacy now: Debian's definition of "non-free"
> is not equivalent to "proprietary." Unfortunately, I think that this
> is confusing some of the people engaged in this discussion. There are
> many reasons why a piece of software can fail the DFSG and end up in
> the non-free section. Some of the licenses of these pieces of software
> differ only slightly from what we would call free. The difference
> is significant, of course; otherwise we would not bother to make the
> Nevertheless, I cannot abide the thought of someone grouping all of
> non-free together as a collection of proprietary software, given away
> for free (i.e., no cost), which we used to include for convenience,
> but now we no longer have need for, because free alternatives have
> matured to the point where we can replace them. Personal opinions of
> the quality of the free replacements aside, this is nothing more than an
> inaccurate description of our non-free section. It was, however, the
> major rationale behind John Goerzen's resolution.
> - Brian
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
"Es América Latina, la región de las venas abiertas."