Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mikko Moilanen]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:55:13 -0400
Richard Stallman <rms@×××.org> wrote:

> In the Gentoo social contract, I read:
>
>     Gentoo Linux is and will remain Free Software

Yes, correct. Gentoo is Free Software. No part of it is non-free. Saying
so I mean standard installation after "emerge system". Then one can, if
one so decides install non-free software, just as in Debian for example.

>     We will release our contributions to Gentoo Linux as free
>     software, under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or
>     later, at our discretion.) Any external contributions to Gentoo
>     Linux (in the form of freely-distributable sources or binaries)
>     may be incorporated into Gentoo Linux provided that we are legally
>     entitled to do so. However, Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a
>     piece of software unless it conforms to the GNU General Public
>     License, GNU "Lesser" Public License or some other license
>     approved by the Open Source Initiative(OSI.)
>
> That criterion is not quite enough to achieve the stated goal,

What goal, do you mean FSF:s goal. Yes, I agree. But what stands in
Gentoos social contrach stands there as is and it stands honestly so.

"Gentoo Linux will never depend.." Gentoo Linux will never depend on
non-free software. Never. Thats enough. Currently there is software that
is non-free and it will take very long time, perhaps never, to achieve
an situation where free software is better in detail than non-free in
games.  

> because
> Licenses approved by the OSI are not necessarily Free Software
> licenses.  As a result, this criterion allows Gentoo to include, and
> even depend on, programs that are not free software.  (See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for an example.)

Does allow not. It will allow include, but NOT depend, and it will NOT
allow Gentoo to depend on software what is NOT freely distributable. It
allows Gentoo to depend only GPL licensed software, or _so it should
be_.

> Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
> OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
> and open source?

Does it do so, does it, or do you mean some hyperlinks?

> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

Yes, I am very big fan of you hmm.. or perhaps you are even an idol to
me, (I know that I dont have resources like you) and I agree on that
one. Gentoo is not so commercial distribution, (and hopefully never will
be) so Gentoos name should be Gentoo GNU/Linux as should all
distributions name themselves. Hey whats wrong?? Not every distribution
should be called that way. Only distributions that are per default
completely free as GPL licence says. It is an honor to name distribution
as GNU/Linux.

Thankyou for you Richard Stallman. Thankyou for pointing very bad
mistake in Gentoos social contract. I value freedom above all else.
Without you there would be nothing like GNU/Linux. You are very great
man. Please keep defending Free Software.

Hopefully gentoo-dev will correct that very bad mistake in social
contracht. I could, but I would not use µ$ if I would want support for
hardware or games. There is commercial non-free alternatives, but there
is now only one significant free alternative in which One can rely on.
It is not enough. It would be good if Gentoo would be also alternative
you can count on.

This is now catastrophic for me. Long going dream cutting apart. But coming
back to reality is _good_. *NO BACKDOORS* please.. you gentoo-dev.
-- 

Mikko