| 1 |
On 2004-02-27, Brad Laue <brad@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Matthew Kennedy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Stewart <blkdeath@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
> >>Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period. |
| 5 |
> > Irrelevant. |
| 6 |
> Very relevant. The year Linux begins to make its big stand as an |
| 7 |
> end-user operating system its chief graphical component is rejected |
| 8 |
> en-masse in a game of license-chicken. Who will blink first? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It may be relevant to "let's get as many people to use Linux as possible". |
| 11 |
It is irrelevant to the legality, or otherwise, of distributing GPL and |
| 12 |
new-XFree86 licensed code. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"But, Your Honour, we only included Microsoft Office without a license |
| 15 |
to do so from Microsoft in the Gentoo distribution to give it more |
| 16 |
chance on the desktop. How can that be against the law?" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the |
| 19 |
same style of argument here? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> It's extremely wreckless to reject a project of such massive importance |
| 22 |
> without having a plan first. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It is extremely reckless to disregard the licenses of other peoples code. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Going for market acceptance by trampling over the wishes/legal rights |
| 27 |
of the authors of other (free as in freedom) code is, frankly, obscene. |
| 28 |
It is what one might expect from Microsoft - not from a Linux |
| 29 |
distributor (unless it's SCO, of course). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> As dire as the legal implications may be in including 4.4, somehow it |
| 32 |
> still feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
No, it's called "respecting other people's licenses". You could shorten |
| 35 |
that to "respecting other people", if you like. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
phil |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
change name before "@" to "phil" for email |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives