Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
> > > moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense
> > > their software under the GPL; it seems that the areas that we have been
> > > successful already are testament to what we have the potential to do
> > > were we to carry an even larger carrot and stick.
> >
> > Please provide examples.
>
> We're still missing those examples, please John.
Those examples are the things that have already happened, such as Qt.
> You asked Craig Sanders to prove that our placing KDE in non-free helped
> to have its license changed. Please provide proof that that change
> would've occurred sooner if we hadn't packaged KDE at all, or an
> equivalent example.
I have not made that claim; I don't know why I should have to prove it.
I see a lot of people saying that placing things in non-free was the
cause of getting the license changed. I'm unconvinced that this is true
and that the real cause is not simply exclusion from main. I made no
claims about timeframe.
-- John
Reply to: