The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CALL FOR VOTES: First of two votes on social contract

bcwhite@verisim.com (Brian White)  wrote on 06.06.97 in <33983BB3.FECE8D3@verisim.com>:

> > > > The Debian Free Software Guidelines
> > > >
> > > > 1. The software may be redistributed by anyone. The license for the
> > > >    software must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> > > >    them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> > > >    original software. If the license restricts a source file from
> > > >    being distributed in modified form, it must allow "patch files" to
> > > >    be distributed with the source for the explicit purpose of
> > > >    modifying it at build time. The license may require derived works
> > > >    to carry a different name than the original software.
> >
> > Brian White wrote:
> > > I still disagree with this.  I strongly believe that Debian should allow
> > > software that can be redistributed freely in its unmodified form into
> > > the main distribution.  I don't see how removing this restriction does
> > > anything but benefit Debian's users.
> >
> > Are you talking about unmodified "binary" or "source" forms?  This does
> > allow unmodified source, as long as it permits patches.
>
> Patches are always allowed and are never covered by the original copyright.
> They are, after all, only a description of how to changes something.

That's only true as long as you distribute those patches by themselves.  
However, that's not what Debian does.

The current Debian source package most certainly qualifies as a derived  
work from the original source.

That's why we have that thing in there about distributing the original  
together with patch files.

> If the author doesn't want modified source (or binaries created from that
> modified source) to be redistributed, then that is their right.  I don't
> see why Debian should disallow such software (which is freely
> redistributable in its original form) from the main distribution.  I'm not

If it disallows distribution of binaries from modified sources, then it  
should most definitely not go inside the main distribution, no way no how.

As for source, in the general case (reasonable tar.gz archive), the only  
thing we need is to be allowed to distribute our .diff.gz alongside the  
.tar.gz.


> trying to encourage this.  I'm trying to give Debian the widest selection of
> software that I can.

Well, that's partly what we have non-free and contrib for. Not everything  
must necessarily go into the main distribution.

And it looks as if the terms we currently have (and which you oppose) are  
sufficient for a fairly wide selection already.


MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .