Re: Debian removed perlreftut

[Abigail-II]

What good is even the most legally solid piece of software if no one can use it?

Actually, the less restrictions on software, the more people can use it. Public domain code is the least restrictive, and it means anyone can do anything with it. perlreftut has more restrictions, and so less people can use it.

Abigail

[Anonymous Monk]

<mode type="RMS">

Public domain code is the least restrictive

In and of itself, yes. However, some may argue that in the long term it contributes to an environment that creates more restrictions and slows development.

Just thought I'd add that in, if it wasn't already obvious to some :)

</mode>

[jryan]

Oh? And why would these "some" argue this point? I couldn't even imagine an environment where public domain would contribute to increased restrictions.

[Anonymous Monk]

I couldn't even imagine...

That's because you're approaching this thread as an argument rather than an educational opportunity.

an environment where public domain would contribute to increased restrictions.

Ever tried to get the source for OSX?

It's really quite simple - by allowing the unconditional use of code you are doing just that, allowing it to be used unconditionally. This means someone can take your source code with all the privileges you have granted them, and distribute it without granting others the same privileges.

Now you say "so what?" the original code is still available right? Yes, it is but now improvements to that original code are not available. Furthermore, the original code has now created a proprietary competitor for itself. It will now lose users, developers, and other resources to the proprietary version (with all those fun EULAs). The company that created the proprietary version has effectively hijacked a portion of the development.

The situation gets even worse when you take into account the current state of patent offices in many countries. The open source version may not even be able to implement the same changes.

For more information, please read the excellent philosophy artices on gnu.org.

[Anonymous Monk]

public domain only makes sense for very short pieces of software

[jryan]

Right, I wasn't arguing that the perlreftut manpage did not have a restrictive license. I'm arguing that the Debian group has lost its mind so far that they are essentially *looking* for things to hang.

perlreftut states that it may be packaged with Perl, and Perl happens to be packaged with Debian. The spirit of the license is still being upheld. However, this doesn't seem to be good enough for the overzelous; ones who seem to care more about licensing issues surrounding software than the software itself.

[Anonymous Monk]

I'm arguing that the Debian group has lost its mind so far that they are essentially *looking* for things to hang.

Yes, just as I'm *looking* for bugs to fix, they're *looking* for licensing problems to fix. Is it so hard to understand that the Debian project has guidelines as to what they will and will not include in their distribution?

Read This.

[jryan]

Is it so hard to understand that I disagree with that philosophy? You're making the connection that "Because X is arguing against Y, he must not be educated about Y". This is incorrect, as well as a logical fallacy. (a post hoc fallacy) I am very well educated on the philosophy of Debian and GNU; its that I think it is harmful.