On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:27:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Why are we putting his code out of Debian? Cause he did not > also go and write up the server. "Sure, yuo wrote GPL'd code, which > does not link with any non-free libs, but that ain't good enough. Now > go back and write the server,, or your code is not free software".
Since when is code in contrib not free software? We're putting his code out of Debian because it's useless in a completely free environment. Not because it's bad, or because it's useless in other environments, and certainly not because it's `not free' (it *is* free afterall), but just because it depends on non-free software. > Branden> It is only within the power of the license to perform > Branden> "coercion" in any legal sense. To "coerce" people outside > Branden> the bounds of the software license would require illegal > Branden> activity on Debian's part (e.g., extortion -- "if you put > Branden> tik on this CD-ROM which also contains Debian's main, we'll > Branden> shoot you dead.") > I wish people would at least consult the dictionary before > making seemingly authoritative statements like this. > > >From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: > Usage: To compel denotes to urge on by force which cannot be > resisted. How is saying "We're going to put this in contrib, not in Debian proper" a force that cannot be resisted? For a third data point, from Collins English Dictionary: `to compel or restrain by force or authority without regard to individual wishes or desires.' What's the force we're using here? What authority do we have over upstream authors' actions? How is saying `Hi, if you want this, get it from contrib instead of main' acting without regard to individual wishes? Yes, we're urging them to make the server free too. But we're not forcing them, and they can *certainly* resist our demands. When we put pine and qmail in non-free, did that coerce the authors of those products to change their license? Where *is* this `irresistable force'? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Smart, sexy, single. Pick any two (you can't have all three).'' -- RFC 1925, paraphrased: a guide to networking in the '90s
pgp2iQr4fVGkE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
