On 2004-01-23 16:40:17 +0000 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a
gross
violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces
payment from non-DD mirror operators.
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey
area, so I present:
Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence v2
The instance 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 an operating system distribution 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 unless it is a distribution
prepared by a debian developer.
[ENDS]
Are there any taboos about asking for payment from for-charge mirrors,
if there are any?
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example
which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after
your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain
when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your
request borders on the absurdly unreasonable.
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.
Because instances which have never happened do not exist.
You may not generalise like that. It's like rolling a normal die three
times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you
have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible.
Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not
meet any DFSG. As I understand it, if the package is well-formed, not
full of bugs and causes no legal problem for the debian mirrors, then
it can get into non-free (or non-US/non-free). See the Debian Policy
Manual at
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free
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.
You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our
archive
exist because of an oversight in the social contract?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar
claim about "auxiliary distributions" may be an oversight.
--
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/
