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

Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements

Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:01PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
> "Our users" includes not only an individual with a single computer who
> never sees the source, but also derivative distributions, private
> organizations, system administrators, etc, all of whom may need to
> modify the source for their own purposes.

Hi Daniel and everybody,

Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild our
system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
or a binary program that is aimed at run on a Windows system. I conclude that
that kind of file, although present in our source packages, are not part of the
source of our operating system.

I understand well Stefano's point of view that we serve better our users by
making things clear and removing these files from our source packages so that
we can say that anything that is in our main section is DFSG-free. I do not
think it is so useful, however, since one can not blindly use DFSG-free
material as we tolerate advertisement clauses, renaming clauses, and clauses
forbidding to sell the software alone.  Not to mention patents and trademark

I think that we should have the possibility to redistribute a bit-identical
upstream archive when possible. In the title of my platform, I wrote ‘more
trust’. What we can do with repacked tarballes, we can do with pristine
ones. If we do not trust each other that a couple of useless non-DFSG-free
files can be ignored, what else can't we trust ?


Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: