[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What I would like to vote for (was: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal)

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:36:57PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> I completely agree with Jason.
<AOL>So do I</AOL> (just to add another voice)

> But I would like to see (in time, not immediately) that
> non-free packages explains why they are not free from the very
> beginning, aka in the description field of the package. Probably this
> should be imposed through the policy for non-free packages.
Very good. We could even define keywords or standard reasons why anything is
in non-free.

I wish to add that according to my impression, most of the stuff in non-free
is there because of IMHO minor violations of the DFSG, as: Clauses that
prohibit to sell the program, some silly acknowledging needs,...

Don't get me wrong, I still do consider the DFSG rules appropriate, but
compared with really closed source software, these are minor points and
putting them all together and ban them sounds too much ideological for me.


Plug-and-Play is really nice, unfortunately it only works 50% of the time.
To be specific the "Plug" almost always works.            --unknown source

Attachment: pgpEmStF4HWiF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: