Hi, > > "Free" by the definition of the GPL. > > No, DFSG-Free, which is the kind of freeness we are discussing.
Thanks for the clarification. > If you think that the GPL is not free enough, go ahead, you may propose a > modification to the DFSG that explicitly says that we don't want any GPLed > software (not recommended ;-). I wouldn't recommend it either. :) The GPL may not be free enough, but I certainly need the GPLed software. Note that I was not implying that we should restrict GPLed software. That would be a disaster. I was merely trying to point out that the GPL can be just as restrictive as TAO's license. > On the other side, if you think that the "may restrict the source from > being distributed in modified form _only if patches are allowed ..." is > too restrictive, you may propose a modification to the DFSG so that "being > conform to a given standard" becomes yet another allowed exception. "Yet another allowed exception?" What's wrong with having exceptions? :) > But until then, the DFSG that we have are the ones that we currently have. I understand that, and as long as I am a Debian Developer my packages will adhere to Debian's standard (sorry, I couldn't resist) ... my packages will adhere to Debian Policy. I may not like certain parts of the Policy but I will adhere to it. Thanks, -Ossama ______________________________________________________________________ Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
