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: Results of "social contract" survey



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 11 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:

> > Freedom is more important than trace-ability.
> 
> This is a false dichotomy.

Could you please elaborate on this?

> > Sure, dpkg-source changes will be an improvement in this area, but again
> > it should not be mandatory from the license. If some author insist on
> > unmodified source, this is not freely redistributable software, and it
> > should go to non-free.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> What the authors are really doing here, is insisting that it be clear  
> which part was made by them, and which part was made by someone else. I  
> see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Neither do I, but we can easily confuse things here. Authors can say:

a) You can not modify this, you can only provide patches.
b) You can modify this, as long as it is clear which exactly did you
change.

IMHO, b) should not imply a) and a) is too much restrictive to be
considered "free".

> Now, we can certainly talk about which ways of handling will best achieve  
> this, but I suspect the best way really _is_ keeping the unchanged  
> original sources around.

I agree, the best way, *in general*, is to keep the original sources
unchanged. But we should not force everybody else to do the same.

This is like limiting the amount that may be charged for a free software
program. There is no need to limit that, because the sole fact that it is
available everywhere by FTP makes it difficult to sell it by 1.000.000$.

Trace-ability is a good thing, but we should keep the freedom of
choice among the several ways to do it.

> [ ... ]
> > There is already a paragraph in the GPL for "trace-ability":
> 
> We explicitely don't want to force people to use the GPL. There are more  
> ways to achieve this goal than one.

I didn't mean that, I just meant that our most popular license does
already takes care of trace-ability and does not force to keep the
original sources untouched. There is no need to make things
even more restrictive.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1

iQCVAgUBM5/I7iqK7IlOjMLFAQFUGwQAswZdSSktI7HOcDBaCzmQiixKfM9HS/H/
H0kIZd3f4x7nFpfypB619JZ4E2VxHXPZMwn1Oks13DTddx+59DOtpu5kkw7qEf18
O01ZrN3XFrlnz1ggOWnLaa8cYfbo/qzDn3tS2hpTQs6XEZrRHjCWUwxbcJhdf+P4
qg//i5YfimY=
=aemh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
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 .