From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from inventor.gentoo.org (unknown [216.223.235.2]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4583200AD22 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:39:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by inventor.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7374E13964C4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:40:44 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ethical Policy From: Daniel Robbins To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <004701c1adb0$dee9d400$fd00a8c0@frampton> References: <003901c1acba$f3d98d20$fd00a8c0@frampton><20020204005854.GA22957@chiba.3jane .net> <000b01c1ad9a$30931940$fd00a8c0@frampton><1012843493.20718.24.camel@silica.l ocalmosci> <003701c1ada7$1d72efe0$fd00a8c0@frampton> <1012847359.28524.28.camel@silica.localmosci> <004701c1adb0$dee9d400$fd00a8c0@frampton> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 04 Feb 2002 12:40:44 -0700 Message-Id: <1012851644.5284.122.camel@inventor.gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 401e17bd-3ac4-48cf-911b-c016b12840a4 X-Archives-Hash: 48cb23c4c5a520a823670213c71f0be3 On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 12:19, David Herbert wrote: > Where I have a problem is with the totally dishonest implication that > gentoo.org is making. Gentoo.org is implying that they are somehow > different, but it now quite clear that you are not. I think that if you > were a .org in sprit rather then just a domain name, you would be proud and > happy to answer my ethical concerns, but instead you are mearly brushing > away and dismissing them, which is exactly what I'd expect of Microsoft, I > just never expected it from a Linux .org organization. I'm also surprised > that apparently so many people are helping you, giving you there own time > and effort without questioning who you are. Tod and aeoo (the people who have been replying to you up until now) are new Gentoo Linux developers, and their responses do *not* represent the official policy or friendliness of the Gentoo Linux development community as a whole. I think that they (well, at least Tod) were trying to point you to information that would hopefully answer your question. I lead Gentoo Linux development, and you should take my response as being official. Here's your answer. _We abide by the Debian Social Contract_, taking into account necessary differences in item 5 due to the nature of the Portage system, explained below. Item 5 states that "non-free" software is not a part of the Debian distribution. We include build scripts for non-free software in our Portage tree as a convenience for users, and *do* consider those build scripts part of Gentoo Linux. Since they are just build scripts (and not binaries themselves), doing this is perfectly legal and does not endanger the "freeness" of the rest of the distribution. Besides this semantic difference, we abide by all other areas of the Debian Social Contract, *including* the statement that Gentoo Linux will never be dependent on non-free software in order to function. Well, with the possible exception of your PC BIOS :) Best Regards, -- Daniel Robbins Chief Architect/President http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Technologies, Inc.