Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, ...
>
> ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
> or other such commercial software.
>
> What about software that is almost free, but is not free in the sense of the
> DFSG ?
>
> This is the case of various software that has big chances of becomming free in
> the future.
>
> Maintaining packages of them has more chances to convince the authors to
> change the licensing, because they see that the maintainer is doing a good job
> of it (well especially people that think if they go totally free, they will be
> inunded by bug report from modified source or other such thing.)
Well, but I would say the opportunity for free distribution is a big
incentive. If we distribute questionably licensed software then we are
removing any motivation for them to change their license. It is by
showing prejudice against their licenses, and thus slowing the adoption of
their software, that we will most quickly coerce companies into good licenses.
> Also, will there be apt-getteable archives of the package we remove from
> non-free ? or will they just be available in rpm format ?
Well, there are a few posibilities. I will personally volenteer some
equipment and bandwidth to distribute some core, pain-in-the-ass non-free
software such as Netscape and the JDK. But, even then, I hesitate to see
why Sun and Netscape should get a free ride. They are big companies and
should provide an apt-gettable source of their materials. For the short
term, however, I see that we must provide users with a way to get at certain
critical non-free software.
--
___________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Freak
Brainfood, Inc. Freak Central
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Reply to: