[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:48:27 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

geez, these reactions like: "condemnation" and "punishment" - im really
only addressing the most extreme (stick a fork in it) cases here - i did
not realize any were ever demoted for any reason for any period of time
in the past - that is really all i hoped to establish as a baseline for

On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Distros are expected to fix freedom problems but I don't know that the
> FSDG can be read that a distro must provide support to its users
> beyond providing for a way to report freedom problems.

sure, BLAG and proteanos do have mailing lists on which freedom problems
could be reported - but they are quite pointless if the maintainers do
not read their mail

On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> The GNU Bucks
> program, for example, conditions getting the Buck not merely on
> *allegation* of a problem but "after the maintainer has confirmed that
> the bug is valid." Why not tie program removal to that same standard?

well, because i am of the mind that software should be considered
non-free until proven otherwise - and probably a court would agree if it
ever came to that - so such a program probably should have never gotten
into a FSDG distro the first place if it has never been established as
being distributable - one should hope that the question of whether or
not a program is freely licensed is something objectively verifiable and
in fact verified; rather than something to be subjectively decided by
the each downstream

i have said it again and again: i dont care what the actual answer is in
this case - i just want everyone to agree what the answer is

but if that is impossible to determine objectively, then the size of
this program IS itself it's own worst problem; justifying, on that fact
alone, not to provide this opaque behemoth to users - if no one
(including it's own maintainers) can so much as determine the licensing
of such a massive program; then HTF can anyone be confident enough to
endorse what the executable code may or may not do once running on the
users machine?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]