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: Meaning of `source code'

csmall@scooter.o.i.net wrote:
> 
> > Commercial companies that wants to _stole_ developers devoted to
> > Free Software are our enemy.
> 
> I know this is an easy trap, because a few weeks ago I was looking
> for a X library to write some programs.  I was initially going to
> use Qt as it seemed "free enough".  It was only some "free software
> evangilism" by a friend and some of the mails here that made me
> change my mind.

Just in time, then.
But if you had spent months in writing for QT, you'll be far less
receptive on your friend's mails and more hurted by "evangilism".
That's what's happening.


> 
> > Thus we should seriously start working on a free-qt project.
> Why not just port any GPL'ed programs that use Qt over to use
> lesstif or gtk? 

But this would raise a worse reaction from the developers (that are
still thinking that their work is free and qt is "free enough").
Their reaction would be against us. Again, Trolltech would have the
effect of putting free sw developers against each other.

I don't like QT, but I think we must stop this by building a free clone
of QT. Maybe simply starting a serious work on this, just to let
Trolltech scare of the possibility of the result (we could lie and tell
that the main effort is a free "windows" version :-).
As someone suggested, they could remove windows code from the sources,
or put a "free" license stronger in freedom than LGPL (like GPL, whose
use on libraries obliges programs linked to be GPL: this would be even
better for their commerce, because authors that wants to wipe GPL from
their products should get a commercial license from them).


fabrizio
-- 
| fpolacco@icenet.fi    fpolacco@debian.org    fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]



--
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 .