Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Thomas M. Beaudry]

I wasn't going to jump into this mess but...

> I don't really think we should mischaracterize what Stallman is bringing
> up here.  He hasn't asked anyone to ban all non-free software from the
> distribution.  All he's saying is, with our definition it's possible for
> software that is considered "open source" but not "free" (as defined
> by RMS) to be depended on.  He'd rather see us require only "free"
> software be depended on.  (We're only talking about the base system
> here, not the entire distribution)
>
> The issue at hand is one of the terms we use.  Do we mean Open Source,
> or do we mean "free software" (as defined by RMS).   Personally, I'm
> fine with just saying that we will never depend on anything that's not
> open source, but saying we'll only depend on free software would be
> fine too considering that we /are/ only talking about the base system.
>
> Either way, I think it would probably behoove us to better define what
> we are saying.  If we end up going the "Free Software" route, then we
> should probably make sure we refer to the FSF as well as OSI.   If we
> don't handle it, it's only going to keep cropping up.

I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't
like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add
more and more such references.  You could conceivably end up with a page
full of such references.

Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free
software under one of the OSI approved licenses.  I just checked the
web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and
the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted
distribution of the software.  How much more free can you get than
that?

>>>(If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
>>>also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)
>>
>
> For the record, if my vote counts for anything, I'm still against this.

I vote against it as well.  The FSF did get the ball rolling with the
GNU license and some software but the vast majority of the GNU licensed
software in a distribution has nothing to do with the FSF other than
using their license.  So this argument turns into acknowledging a
license in the name of the distribution.  If we add acknowledgment of
the GNU license in the name, then shouldn't we do the same for all the
other licenses that are used?  That could grow to be a mighty long
name.  I say stick with tradition and just call it Linux.

-- 
Thomas M. Beaudry
k8la / ys1ztm