Re: my answers to questions
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 07:35:52AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 02:42:53AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > > I do not want to see non-free more readily available,
> > > I would in fact like for it to wither and die. That's not contrary to the
> > > needs of commercial interests,
> >
> > You surely meant "proprietary interests" here. Commercial interests and free
> > software have never conflicted in a fundamental way. It slips through a
> > couple of other times in your mail, but I won't nag you by pointing them
> > out.
>
> Just my POV:
>
> The reasons for the existance of non-free have nothing to do with either
> "proprietary interests" or "commercial interests"! The reason for non-free
> stem from the existance of programs with licenses that fail the DFSG.
> (note, this is _not_ equivelant to either "proprietary" or "commerial")
> Nothing more, nothing less. Many of the licenses in non-free meet two out
> of three requirements of the DFSG (1. Provide Source, 2. Allow
> Modification, 3. Allow Distribution of Modified Binaries), but even the
> worst license (in MHO that would be Pine) allows distribution of source,
> or it couldn't even go into non-free.
This is not true.
There is software in non-free for which no source is available.
Jules
Reply to: