Kent West wrote:
> I believe you misunderstand Joey's post. He's not asking for any help.
> He's just pointing out to Steve Lamb that Steve has ignored his previous
> post, which follows this timeline (as I recall it).
I haven't ignored it. I am just not prone to "me too" posts. If I agree
with a post what's the point of sending a message with that little content?
> Steve ignored this bit in favor of continuing to argue that Debian
> should be doing something for Steve's benefit which is neither legal nor
> in line with the Debian philosophy.
No. I am not advocating that Debian do anything legal. But there is a
wide gap between what is legal and what is acceptable by the DSC and thus a
focus of Debian at large. Joey's pointed out a fine example of what would be
a problem and a possible work around. But that is but one, specific, example
and not applicable to all possible scenarios. Point is not all proprietary
drivers have such complex issues as the one he cited. Not all proprietary
software have the licensing issues that Java has. Debian, as a project, can
gain a whole lot more if it were to address more of that middle ground instead
of turning it's nose way up when it comes to such issues. Hell, if people
think Debian has so much clout why not approach these vendors asking
permission for distribution! These vendors don't seem opposed to other OSes
packaging up their drivers for redistribution.
I mean, as I wrote this message I decided to do some research and find out
why ATI drivers aren't included based on a legal precedence and not one based
on the social contract. After 10 minutes I had yet to find a license on ATI's
page much less one restricting redistribution. Could someone please provide a
pointer, I honestly want to see for myself.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature