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: iwj@debian.org

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:

> sanvila@unex.es (Santiago Vila Doncel)  wrote on 12.06.97 in <Pine.LNX.3.96.970612114214.1397A-100000@cantor.unex.es>:
> > Freedom is more important than trace-ability.
> From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
> > This is a false dichotomy.
> 
> So far Santiago's argument has _not_ convinced me that we should exclude
> programs when the source file can not be changed but the use of patch files
> to modify the program is allowed.
> 
> I agree it's not optimal, and we should encourage people to not restrict
> their source files from being modified.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing new arguments, but please don't repeat the
> old stuff.
> 
I'll do my best to make this sound new ;-)

I really disagree with your last point Bruce. I believe it is in everyones
best interest to encourage unmodified source. With the current (and I hope
any future) source package design this guarantees that all the Debian
changes are contained in the .diff file. 

This also allows for validation of the upstream source, when found in a
Debian archive. I believe, as well as encouraging unmodified source, we
should also encourage the association of an md5sum with the source file,
so anyone can verify that the source file they poses is identical to the
one produced by the author.

This is a copyright that the author should not be required to reliquish to
contribute software that may be concidered free. The GPL provides
precident for this when it protects itself from being superceeded by more
restrictive copyright. This is in an attempt to maintain the
identification of authors with their products. 

Demanding unmodified source is a reasonable way to maintain control over
the identity of the creator of the products bugs, much more than it
maintains the authors authority over his own intelectual property.

I have always been able to reduce the "free software" question to one of
distribution. Requiring that source be maintained unchanged, in no way
restricts the distribution of the software (or its source), or changes to
that software. It only requires that they be maintained seperately.

To me this is strongly supportive of the "Free Software Ideal" and
provides a mechanism for protecting both the author and the end user from
unscrupulous villans who would corrupt the product, as well as isolating
changes in such a way that they can be easily removed if they cause a
problem.

Hope that was different enough ;-)

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
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 .