On Tue, 29 May 2001, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: >On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 05:19:08PM -0600, John Galt wrote: >> Actually, the installer would go into contrib, unless you're planning to >> use a non-DFSG-free license for the installer itself. The program itself >> is DFSG free, it just depends on (gets) a non-free program. >> >> >If not, we could ask Macromedia for an exceptional permission. Does >> >anyone know how such a permission should be asked? (Maybe an e-mail >> >template...) >> >> NO! The email template for asking debian specific permission is DON'T DO >> IT. I cannot emphasize it strongly enough: Debian neither will nor even >> can ask for debian-specific permission, see DFSG #8: > >First let me mention that I am not a lawyer. That said, I don't see why DFSG
I don't think that there's anyone that posts on this list regularly that's a laiwyer... Hell, the only Bar I'm a member of is the one on the corner that knows my favorite brands of beer, gin, and vodka... >#8 should affect programs in non-free. I am not taking a position on the >main topic of this thread, but why would any rules of the DFSG apply to >non-free? I thought that was the whole point of that (separate) distribution. >Is there some reason other than the DFSG why a Debian-specific license could >not be used to put something in non-free? This is true, the DFSG has no say on things that fail it in even one respect. However, DFSG 8 may apply to the ACTION of asking. That is, nobody representing Debian may ask another to circumvent the DFSG. >Please CC me on your replies - getting an extra copy of replies to my messages >works well with my procmail filters. > >- Jimmy Kaplowitz >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
