*Branden Robinson wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think there is one answer. In they hypothetical apple case, it's clear that the client should go into contrib. In this case, it is not punishment, it just makes people aware of what they are doing when they get that client. But what if a free client is a good tool for working on implementing a free server? Would putting it in contrib stigmatize it? I guess this is not too much of a sacrifice, because, if people are using a free client to understand a server, presumably, they know what the issues are and what they are doing, and it does not matter to them that it was in contrib. > We *do* care if, say, Apple comes up with some kind of streaming media > server and patents the codec. They release the viewer/playback engine > under a free license, but the encoder/authoring tool is proprietary, and > furthermore they have a patent on the codec algorithm, so no one can even > try (legally) to reverse-engineer it and release a competing authoring tool > under the GPL. Do we put the player into main? This example is a bit less > clear than the ICQ example, but let's think about it. Does this scenario > really do anything for free software? You're allowed to eat, but not to > cook. This shackles you to the restauranteurs. >
-- John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
