| 1 |
Please never ever reply to me off list. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Friday 28 November 2003 22:57, brett holcomb wrote: |
| 4 |
> Because I've finally found a distro that works. I've |
| 5 |
> watched Unix mess up the desktop, been condemmed to use |
| 6 |
> Windows for years, used Linux and suffered the RPM mess. |
| 7 |
> I finally found Gentoo which is an almost perfect distro. |
| 8 |
> It provides a large number of packages, is easy to |
| 9 |
> install, maintain, and upgrade and allows us choice in |
| 10 |
> what we want to run. And then people want to Debianize |
| 11 |
> Gentoo. Yes, they still do - that's not dead by any |
| 12 |
> means. It shows in some of the comments and in the |
| 13 |
> attitude of which "immoral licenses" was one I've received |
| 14 |
> in this thread. It's an attitude that anyone who uses |
| 15 |
> non-free isn't worth consideration so let a third party |
| 16 |
> fill in the gaps or they can go elsewhere. Well, we can't. |
| 17 |
> The free only can always go to Debian - we only can go |
| 18 |
> back to RPM distros! It appears choice is good as long |
| 19 |
> it's free-only. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
While some people may have that attitude it never makes its way into anything |
| 22 |
that is released with Gentoo. Do you think this sort of debate has never came |
| 23 |
up before? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I have no problem with adding license handling being |
| 26 |
> modified so that all of us can build systems as we desire |
| 27 |
> and that allow us to do our jobs. I do have a problem |
| 28 |
> with Gentoo being changed so that we who use non-free |
| 29 |
> software have to make the changes - why should we. If |
| 30 |
> someone is that hot to have it change let them make the |
| 31 |
> changes to their make.conf or whatever file. Yes, even |
| 32 |
> having to do that change may be a small item but the |
| 33 |
> camel's nose appeared small when he first shoved it under |
| 34 |
> the tent. I've said more than I should so I'll just |
| 35 |
> watch and see what happens. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Most new Linux users assume that everything associated with Linux is free. The |
| 38 |
only reason I can see to have a default of "free-only" licenses is to make |
| 39 |
sure those users are aware of the agreement under which they're using the |
| 40 |
software. As well as that, many users who use "non-free" software (myself |
| 41 |
included) are interested in the terms under which they are using it. Your |
| 42 |
opinion doesn't sound so much like the free vs. non-free; it sounds like |
| 43 |
those who care about licensing vs. those who don't. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
The addition of licensing to Gentoo is in no way related to the free vs. |
| 46 |
non-free debate; only the defaults is. When the defaults are decided it won't |
| 47 |
be by a vote on free vs. non-free; it will be decided with valid reasoning as |
| 48 |
in the above. Until there is (at least some) concensus on that reasoning, the |
| 49 |
decision will not be finalised. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Jason |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives