Sorry - Left out some words and it breaks the email they need to be in
there, bad form to reply to your own post, however I do think the point
is wor
On 04/09/10 12:50, Paul O'Malley wrote:
Hi,
When I applaud the list of "blobs" being created, it strikes me that
the community may wish to think of a question or two around this issue.
Is it enough to label these things as incompatible?
When is the person who chose the licence to
have someone
politely explain how their licence prevents
lots of
people from using their software.
It was exactly this kind of process that got GLX freed up and allowed
back in to the libre stack.
It takes time, in the case of GLX about a year.
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2009-01-xorg-glx
What should not happen is that you accept someone else's word for it.
This can leave you exposed to at least being wrong and perhaps
angering the person or people you want on your side.
For instance there are a batch of fonts that seem to be nonfree
however if you dig into the debian licence documentation the non free
licence is actually turned into a licence which has more in common
with WTFPL than anything else, except it
(the licence that is)
could used in the politest of company. I'm not naming them for the
simple reason this is a tangent to my main thought.
The results of action in this space may be to get code released with a
good licence and save reinventing the wheel should anyone wish to work
on materials in this space.
When seeking a licence change you should request that it is
retroactive so anyone with any version can choose either the new free
licence or the old one, given that people have come to depend on both.
Regards,
Paul O'Malley
