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

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Bruce writes:
> > 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'm afraid I am going to repeat old arguments, because I feel they
> have not been answered.  I don't consider `the dichotomy between
> freedom and traceability is false' an answer to these arguments:
> 
> 1. Maintenance of a piece of free software should not be a monopoly.
> 
> One of the key benefits of free software is that if anyone feels that
> it is not being maintained to their satisfaction, and that they can do
> a better job, they can take it over or fork it and release their own
> versions.
> 
> Licenses that prevent people other than the copyrightholder from
> distributing modified sources prevent this process, which is normal
> and expected in the free software world.

Just saying something is true doesn't make it so.

I don't see how requiring distribution of the source unmodified prevents
maintianing modification through diff files. Our packaging system even
supports this method without effort.

> 
> Furthermore, the copyrightholder may become unavailable for some
> reason, with the result that a piece of free software can become
> unmaintainable because noone can get permission to distribute modified
> source code.
> 
This is no more true than your last comment.

> 2. Code-reuse requires the distribution of modified source.
> 
Not as far as I can tell.

> If a program prohibits distribution of modified versions of its source
> code then parts of it cannot be taken and incorporated in free
> software.
> 
> 3. `Source' files are sometimes installed directly.
> 
This has nothing to do with distribution restrictions.

> Some packages, eg TeX, have files that are distributed with the source
> code and which must be installed on the target system as they are.  If
> we are not allowed to distribute modified versions of these files then
> we are not allowed to distribute a .deb file which contains our
> modification; we would have to patch the file in the postinst.
> 
> 4. Our source format is a technical decision, and should not be
> mandated by a software licence.
> 
> The fact that we are going to switch to distributing unmodified
> upstream source with patches is an engineering decision that should be
> up to the project to take.  We should not be forced into this decision
> by the licensing terms of the software we distribute.
> 
> If we accept this new laxer definition of freedom now then we may find
> that later, if we want to change the source format again, we have
> engineered into our product some software whose licence will prevent
> us from doing so.

I agree here, but also think that protecting the authors concept and
implimentation is what this issue is really about. I don't see that it
"weakens" the Free Software community at all. Actually I see this as
potentially encouraging more software development for the Free Software
market.
This requirement does not impede modification or improvement of the
software. It simply protects the author from being required to take
responsibility for changes made down stream that, from his perspective are
inappropriate or broken in concept.

Later,

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 .