Op 31-03-15 om 23:52 schreef Riley Baird: > The constitution refers to licenses, but it has come to be understood > that the upstream interpretation of, *and intentions behind*, the > license forms part of this definition. > > For example, PINE had a MIT-style license, but upstream interpreted > this to mean that both modification and distribution were permitted, > but not distribution of modified copies. The solution wasn't to declare > all MIT-style licenses non-free, but rather to declare such licenses > non-free only when applied to PINE.
You have a point. But I think PINE is wrong. > Before you argue that you are not like PINE, and you are granting full > permissions under the AGPL, and are only making a request, note that > the above case was only cited as precedent for the constitutional > understanding of licenses. > > In your case, you are trying to make restrictions without putting them > in the copyright license, and thinking that you can get around the > constitution that way. However, your intention is to apply a > non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would > immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, at the expense of Debian's > users. And that you threatened to "friendly request" that the software > be removed from Debian should we fail to meet your wishes, is evidence > that you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing > scheme contrary to its values. Realize that it's not my software. For me this is an "academic discussion" about free software. What I see is that free software as in speech, what's not free as in beer, is a bit nonsense. At the moment. You can use that to sell some hardware, like a DVD or USB stick. >>> In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into >>> main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't >>> that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the >>> non-free repository. Being "only" in non-free is nothing to be ashamed >>> of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with >>> invariant sections. >> >> Do you want to put free software into nonfree? > > Not if it's intentionally broken. You have a point. > In that case, I'd rather keep it out > of the archive altogether. > >>> Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as >>> obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) >> >> Do you mean freedom as in beer? > > Yes. Are you happy now? Yes, I like clearness ;-) >> I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of >> software. > > Exactly. We don't. And I think that from the discussion on this thread, > it is obvious that we won't be making one. Go to Ubuntu and try to sell > them on your idea. I am not interested in Ubuntu. I am not interested in selling. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgbro$4r1$1...@ger.gmane.org
