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

Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot



On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.

If you mean reverse-engineering the devices, I think even the currently-proposed EU "enforcement directive" about this doesn't make it illegal. http://www.ffii.org.uk/ip_enforce/ipred.html

They would say :
  why should i care about freing the code, since i can upload those
  binary only drivers to non-free.org [...]

That seems little different to what they can say about debian.org today.

Point taken about developer motivations, but it's odd to ignore external non-free existing already, but ask the project to act based on what might happen to external non-free. Should we vote to keep "non-free" because of some concept like "keep your friends close and enemies closer"?

--
MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/



Reply to: