Stuart Ballard writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > FSF pages don't link to unfree software projects. It seems that OMG > > is not be an unfree software project, because "Implementations of the > > OMG specifications - such as Object Request Brokers, IDL compilers, > > and UML-based modeling tools - are not produced by OMG. They are, > > instead, produced by software vendors or suppliers..." > > But the link is provided specifically to get some software that *is* > produced by the OMG, and is non-free.
Where is this software? > I see three distinct issues here: > > 1) The link doesn't actually take you to a place where you can get the > software in question, so it's pretty useless as a link anyway. > > 2) The link is in a section labelled "providers for free core packages", > but the software in question is not free. You could argue that "free" in > this context means zero-cost, but on a GNU project such usage is at best > VERY ambiguous and at worst outright misleading. Where is this link? > 3) GNU projects aren't supposed to link to non-free software, so the > link shouldn't exist in the first place. A link to OMG *could* be > legitimate, if it was in the context of "the people who define the CORBA > specification, including the org.omg packages". But even though the OMG > is not in itself a non-free software project, I can't see how "go to the > OMG to get this software", when the software in question is non-free, is > not a link to non-free software. > > To fix 3, the link must be removed entirely. If for some reason 3 > doesn't need to be fixed (eg I'm misinterpreting GNU project policy), at > least 1 and 2 should be. If there is a pointer to unfree software it must, per GNU rules, be removed. But I've failed to find it, and I did try. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath