On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 +0000 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
Let us be clear and agree on this: your amendment would change
debian's practices. It is not just a wording change to deliver the
same result.
To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license
which:
[a] Doesn't allow free distribution
[b] Doesn't let us provide source code
[c] Doesn't let us change it
[d] Discriminates against some people
[e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor
[f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license
[g] Is specific to Debian
[h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it
You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to
distribute
such software.
Please tell me why debian could not distribute software in non-free
which has a licence that says:
Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence
The release of this software offered to the debian project may be
copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian
project or as part of a CD prepared by a debian developer. Any
distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to
the copyright holder. The software may not be modified and must not be
used for tasks involving nuclear reactions. The software is covered by
patent EP 394160 so it may only be used by holders of a suitable
patent licence until 2010. This software may not be distributed on a
removable magnetic disk containing any other copyrighted material.
[ENDS]
I think this licence prevents free distribution, doesn't provide
source code, prevents modification, discriminates against non-DDs and
commerce, requires an additional licence, is specific to debian and
contaminates other software. I may need to refine it, but I think the
spirit is right.
A reason to include such software is not an argument I can make. I do
not believe there is a compelling reason to have any of non-free in
debian's archive any more, while others do. I think you may be one who
does.
It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to.
I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we
distribute
such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims
about
existing pracice to making claims about future practice.
I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to
only current instances of existing practice. Whether we currently have
such software is not the whole issue. You claimed that your proposal
does not contain policy changes, although you no longer claim that.
And what is this "substantial change"?
Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary
distributions.
That may be an oversight. If the claim is not clear, we should repair
it, not remove it as your proposal does.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
