On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 07:35:52AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 02:42:53AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > > I do not want to see non-free more readily available, > > > I would in fact like for it to wither and die. That's not contrary to the > > > needs of commercial interests, > > > > You surely meant "proprietary interests" here. Commercial interests and free > > software have never conflicted in a fundamental way. It slips through a > > couple of other times in your mail, but I won't nag you by pointing them > > out. > > Just my POV: > > The reasons for the existance of non-free have nothing to do with either > "proprietary interests" or "commercial interests"! The reason for non-free > stem from the existance of programs with licenses that fail the DFSG. > (note, this is _not_ equivelant to either "proprietary" or "commerial") > Nothing more, nothing less. Many of the licenses in non-free meet two out > of three requirements of the DFSG (1. Provide Source, 2. Allow > Modification, 3. Allow Distribution of Modified Binaries), but even the > worst license (in MHO that would be Pine) allows distribution of source, > or it couldn't even go into non-free.
This is not true. There is software in non-free for which no source is available. Jules
