On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote: > i have no idea why you're mentioning it, though, because it doesn't > seem to apply to you. according to NM, you only applied to become a > developer in October 2003, many years after we discussed the social > contract and DFSG.
My involvement with Debian predates my NM application. I'm refering specifically to a few works in non-free that have crossed debian-legal's path. > actually, no. it doesn't work like that. if it's not in debian, > then all that means is that it's not in debian - there could be any > reason why not. however, if it's in non-free then that makes a > statement about that particular program - it says that it is not > free software as we define it. In all the cases that I've been involved with, where the resultant software has been freed, the presence or absence of the software in Debian has not been the the most important factor. What matters is communication with upstream with the goal of freeing the software. > > > the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed really > > > makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all. > > > > In numerous cases, it makes a difference to me. > > how, exactly? I work with large data sets all the time in my research (I work with gene microarrays, currently studying Alzheimer's Disease.) Quite often I have to extract information from them, or use the in manners that their original publishers did not intend. Datasets with restrictive licenses keep me from making the actual dataset used in my observations public, so people can easily verify and check the results. > > For example, consider the doom WAD files. > > if you want to be able to freely distribute doom wad files, then > make your own graphics and sounds etc. there's nothing stopping > you. Obviously, but this is a case where the fact that modified versions cannot be redistributed makes a pratical difference to someone, which was the point under discussion. > no, the issue is precisely that some people can not stand the > thought that other people might not make the morally-superior choice > of using only DFSG-free software. > > so they take the morally-inferior action of inflicting their choices > on everyone else. We're discussing whether or not Debian should distribute works that are not DFSG free, not whether we should allow our users to use works that are non DFSG free. You may argue that it is morally inferior for us to fail to make it easy for people to make a morally inferior choice, but to claim that we are restraining people from using non-free software is ludicrous at best. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
