"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 13:34]: >> > Current hosting services usually only have one project for a specific >> > piece of software with a limited set of people allowed to change it. >> > I don't see how "I do not want to maintain this software, I just need >> > this patch with a minor hard-coded modification hosted somewhere >> > so that I can run the software" gives you access to any hosting >> > services. >> >> I won't point to specific projects to avoid embarrassment, but I have >> published some projects on Google Code which is a fork of an existing >> free software project plus some "ugly patches". I had to rename the >> project, but that's easy. > > And you think that once there will be hundreds of such renamed projects > of the same program which only have some patches that are not very > usefull for most people because of having to specific solutions and no > activity but some "please do not delete the project, I need the source > hosted to be able to run it" the hosting providers will just let this > go and not actively prune those pseudo-orphaned projects?
Yes, I believe they will, until it becomes a noticeable problem. When this becomes a significant problem for people to think about doing something about it, technical solutions to solve it will be developed. For example, http://repo.or.cz/ provides a anonymous-writable branch of registered projects. >> Basically, I don't understand the cost argument. Free software doesn't >> need to have an total-cost-of-ownership of 0 USD to be free software. >> Free software often costs much in reality. > > So if I write some software that will usually only used in a way that > one has to pay huge amounts for the servers and the connections it runs > on anyway to make some sense, then a license requiring the user of the > software to "donate" $100 per copy to some free software charity would > be acceptable for main? I don't follow what you mean, but I believe a license that requires anyone to donate $100 per copy would fail DFSG #1. A program that requires CPU cycles from 100.000 machines to start would prevent many from using the program, but technically I don't see that by itself as a reason it couldn't be included in Debian. Of course, I don't speak for the Debian project about what can and cannot be included in the Debian OS. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
