So far, we've been able to address these issues more-or-less adequately as
they've come up, but it would be a lot easier if the GPL were protected
by a license of the sort you recommended for standards...
I agree that treating the GPL like the other documents might help
persuade some
I can also support having apt's sources.list be something like this:
# Something about this being sources.list and pointin you at
# sources.list(5) for info on its format
#
# The general outline of an entry for http:
# deb http://your.server/mirror release dist
I think that the best basic policy is that a package can go in `main'
if it doesn't require any non-free software *on your machine*.
Making use of non-free software on another machine is unfortunate
but does not put you in the same moral dilemma as having it on
your own machine.
But there could
Encumbered in which country? In many countries (including the one
where non-us.debian.org resides) software patents are not accepted.
Which country is that? If it is in Europe, I am afraid
the situation may be about to change.
I'd like to know RMS' opinion on the issue: why should I
Whether something that happens to be patented should be considered
non-free. Currently it is. I believe however that the proper place for
an otherwise free but patented bit of software is non-US/main.
I agree with the idea of considering these programs free,
for whatever parts of
Could you provide a pointer to the change you're referring to? One of the
worst scenarios I can come up with is an international treaty regulating
mutual recognition of (software) patents.
It concerns a change in the European Patent Office rules.
See www.freepatents.org.
6 matches
Mail list logo
