Re: software distribution criteria -- The OpenBSD case

[John Darrington]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:00:39PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

     
http://archive.gnewsense.org/gnewsense/pool/main/g/gdb/gdb_6.4-1ubuntu5.1.diff.gz
     
       "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
       document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
       Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software
       Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "Free Software" and
       "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" [...]"
     
     It took me all of two minutes to find that.  Did you check your facts
     before posting?

No.  That's why I asked you if you were sure.  I had been told that
GNS didn't carry anything that wasn't currently in Debian.  If your
references are accurate, then this information must have been incorrect.
     
     instructions.  By "pretending that it doesn't exist" I mean not
     mentioning the existance on the project web site.  That's being
     silly.

Not in the slightest.  It's something that any responsible
organisation should take care about.  It's OK to mention an antagonist
organisation in a discussion paper where you also state the reasons
why that organisation is considered unethical, especially if that organisation
already has a high profile.  But it would be counter-productive, even
irresponsible, to give free publicity to such an organisation.
Personally, I would not donate my time nor money to GnuHerds nor any
other organisation which did this.
     
     > I think it's entirely appropriate that a Free software project avoids
     > giving publicity to non-free software.  Doing otherwise is
     > incompatible with its very objective.
     
     Not if that publicity is designed to publicise the non-free nature of
     it.  Notice that the FSF and sometimes GNU announces and explains why
     software is non-free-software, like in the "Java trap".

In general, I agree.  But FSF only mentions these things in the
context I've described above.  It would be totally contrary if the FSF
said these things, and then linked to Java-trapped projects which it's
possible to use in conjunction with GNU Software.
     
J'

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature