Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
- From: Sergey Panov <sipan sipan org>
- To: Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>
- Cc: rms gnu org, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:49:39 -0400
It does appear that the inclusion of "open and not free" packages in
GNOME is an exception, not rule.
You can type the following (or equivalent apt) query on you system and
analyze the result:
sudo yum info installed "*gnome*x86_64" "*gnome*noarch" | grep -E "Name|License"
On my system out of 109 packages 4 combine GPL/LGPL with BSD license,
one combines GPL/LGPL with MIT (compiz-gnome).
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:28 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
> > LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be
> > developed.
> > In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still
> > wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list.
> We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier.
> These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a
> addons.gnome.org would need to be different:
> http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing :
> Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support
> open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module
> license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel
> mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed
> standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications
> that support closed protocols should also support open
> equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at
> all possible while still serving their intended purpose.
> That states "free OR open". Given the context I guess "open" means open
> source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?)
] [Thread Prev