On Sun, 20 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote: >On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote: >> >2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and >> >thus does not "stay true to our ideals". >> >> It can be worded that Debian disagrees strongly with the idea of patented >> software, but pragmatically is providing it because of a percieved >> utility. Sort of like RMS's "non-free" question in base, except a bit >> longer and more preachy :) > >Yeah, but we don't ship non-free stuff in main. We could just as well >add a similar click though mechanism for non-free stuff as well: "The >license for this software prohibits x, y, and z. If you swear you won't >do any of those things, it's just as good a free software".
I said just about this in the previous paragraph. I was mostly expanding on the idea here. In fact, I see it as well within the scope of Debian to preach about the evils of non-DFSG free software upon installation via debconf. >Steve > -- There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!