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=0.8 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_REJECT,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com (smtp-send.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.143]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A91FAC5E6 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 05:16:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from myrealbox.com k8la@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [209.164.232.65] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with NetMail SMTP Agent $Revision: 3.12 $ on Novell NetWare via secured & encrypted transport (TLS); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 04:16:32 -0600 Message-ID: <3D903C32.2090606@myrealbox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:19:30 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Beaudry" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020731 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-sv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Bainter Cc: mike , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo References: <130601c2629f$83c78b90$55f1d782@vapier> <20020923040056.GE10976@firinn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: d242beb4-c3c5-4d6b-a1fd-c48d0f9cd7bc X-Archives-Hash: 319bd6f1a18cdd8697b91547fea98780 I wasn't going to jump into this mess but... > I don't really think we should mischaracterize what Stallman is bringing > up here. He hasn't asked anyone to ban all non-free software from the > distribution. All he's saying is, with our definition it's possible for > software that is considered "open source" but not "free" (as defined > by RMS) to be depended on. He'd rather see us require only "free" > software be depended on. (We're only talking about the base system > here, not the entire distribution) > > The issue at hand is one of the terms we use. Do we mean Open Source, > or do we mean "free software" (as defined by RMS). Personally, I'm > fine with just saying that we will never depend on anything that's not > open source, but saying we'll only depend on free software would be > fine too considering that we /are/ only talking about the base system. > > Either way, I think it would probably behoove us to better define what > we are saying. If we end up going the "Free Software" route, then we > should probably make sure we refer to the FSF as well as OSI. If we > don't handle it, it's only going to keep cropping up. I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add more and more such references. You could conceivably end up with a page full of such references. Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free software under one of the OSI approved licenses. I just checked the web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted distribution of the software. How much more free can you get than that? >>>(If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us >>>also. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.) >> > > For the record, if my vote counts for anything, I'm still against this. I vote against it as well. The FSF did get the ball rolling with the GNU license and some software but the vast majority of the GNU licensed software in a distribution has nothing to do with the FSF other than using their license. So this argument turns into acknowledging a license in the name of the distribution. If we add acknowledgment of the GNU license in the name, then shouldn't we do the same for all the other licenses that are used? That could grow to be a mighty long name. I say stick with tradition and just call it Linux. -- Thomas M. Beaudry k8la / ys1ztm