> [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable > restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and > obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force > Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values.
How heated. This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support the project. This kind of stuff is usually accepted. I don't see anything especially bad in a 5-users limitation. It's a bug like a million other limitations we have. For example, in kicad I can't make more than 12 inner layers in the PCB. We accept it because it's by design, but what if there were another kicad sold for profit without such limitation? Worse: open/libre office refuses to open on a different display (export DISPLAY) than the first instance that has been fired. And firefox forces me to create a different profile to achieve that. I find them limiting, and they are not easily patched. Than I'm aware I'm obsolete inside and few people swear at this, but it's similar. The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they are better at marketing than at developing. I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not "defective by design", but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make real use of the distro. But unless we know what this software package is, all of this discussion is moot. The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed about all this handwaving about freedom, when it's just a a bug, even if on purpose. I heard about a commercial model of making subtly bugged software and then sell consultancy to fix those bugs when users hit them. *that* would be bad to have in debian, but we can't really know if some of this exists or has been accepted. The upstream author of this discussion is much more clear and honest, and I respect it. BTW, dual-licensed stuff like Qt is much more predatory than this, and still is in main -- but I don't want to open this can of worms, it's just as a comparison about what commercial models debian supports (one-copyright holder, no unassigned contributions, separate proprietary distribution channel) and what we discuss strongly about (an upstream author who honestly claims he has completely-free software with an easily-patched limitation in order to bring some non-techie to support him). thanks for reading /alessandro, not a DD, not a lawyer, and commercially irrelevant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150401062034.ga...@mail.gnudd.com
