Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to > make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing > obligations apply upon source code distribution.
I'm puzzled by this phrasing. Don't you mean binary (or any) distribution? At that point, many licences put obligations upon you. > The issue at hand is the superset that the Free Software Foundation has > now declared to be a Free Software licence: Can you demonstrate where this contradicts their Free Software Definition? This does not appear to be news, so I am surprised that you feel a need to highlight it on this list. > This appears to be a very broad ("in any way") test for a requirement to > provide source code when electronically communicating with a client ("in > any way to provide a service, including but not limited to delivery of > content"). I agree that the wording of this part seems a little broad. It is more a question of whether we can take it at face value. The Google problem is well-known, I thought? There are all these millions of users who are not able to adapt the software they use... [...] > believe there is stigma attached to packaging software classified as > non-free and in many cases it is just as accessible to Debian users.] I disagree with you. I think packaging for non-free does little to help us achieve our aims. I would love to see non-free go away, but that's a different discussion. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]