|| ||Anthony Towns <aj-AT-azure.humbug.org.au>|
|| ||Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris|
|| ||Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:39:20 +1000|
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> They began distributing binaries to a large audience *after* they were
> notified of the problems. This gives the impression that they don't
> care about GPL compliance, and want to gain publicity *now*,
> exploiting the "GNU" and "Solaris" trademarks.
So this would be much the same as the DCC Alliance? Shouldn't we then
take the view that as fellow free software travellers we should discuss
the concerns in confidence?
Or is it more akin to Debian's pre-2001 efforts on GPL compliance, where
we'd frequently find ourselves accidently distributing binaries without
corresponding source, due to a lack of infrastructure to track which
source was necessary? In which case, shouldn't we encourage people to
make their best efforts, but acknowledge the shortcomings and trust that
things will be improved in time, and perhaps further note that that will
be faster with our help?
Or perhaps it's more akin to Debian's current handling of installer
images, which aren't guaranteed to have their sources available? Should
we drop everything to ensure that env-pressed 1.09's source is available
for the 20051018 unstable images, instead of just 1.10's? In which case
shouldn't we be being circumspect about mentioning the problem, and
quietly working to fix it, and thus both retaining our credibility and
strengthening our commitment to free software?
I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major
contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major
OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris,
BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the
fact that now four out of those five are free at their core?
to post comments)