[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)

Le Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 11:46:06AM +0200, Nils Rennebarth écrivait:
> 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)

Me too. 

> 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,...

That was exactly my point in one of my previous message.

And some of these minor violations may well disappear in future versions
of the software due to popular demand. :)

That's why I do not see the need of moving non-free.

> 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.

Me too.

Raphaël Hertzog >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/

Reply to: