> > But your promise in not the point. The author wants this promise
> > from everybody. It's the best way to be assured that improvements
> > get distributed to everyone and not just a select group.
>
> What if the author decides to not accept a change?
>
> Say the author considers the intent of the change repugnant and simply
> will not accept patches, even if it's runtime configurable and
> defaults to off.
I think the auther is short-sighted. However, I do believe he/she should
have the right to maintain control over his/her creation without being
told that "it can't go in Debian".
I'm not trying to debate whether one type of copyright is better or worse
than another. I just don't believe that Debian has room for only one.
There will be cases where the more restrictive license will mean it can't
go in Debian (if the source must be modified to work with Debian, for
example), but I think it is a bad general rule. To the vast majority of
people, this restriction makes no difference. To those that it does,
they are under no obligation to use it.
I can understand Debian making policy that none of the core system will
depend on such packages, but I don't see any advantage to simply disallowing
such copyrights from the main distribution.
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the difference between theory and practice is less in theory than in practice
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
