[Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Tue Oct 31 16:33:07 UTC 2006

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:15:30AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
> Right now we have a very strong criteria for freedom.  Weakening that 
> criteria it's a very slippery slope.  Why is non-commercial okay?  Why 
> not add non-modifiable?  Why not add djb code?  _That_ is why people are 
> objecting so loudly.

I haven't heard so much people loudly objecting. Admitedly if the DFSG/OSI 
compliance is not used as a criterion for that particular add-on repo, 
it opens the door for more complicated rules of choice, but it also adds 
room for adding more packages. If there are enough people ready to take
the time to devise a rule for deciding what is sufficiently free for that
add-on repo, why should it be an issue?

> And for the record, Debian non-free is utter hypocrisy.

I don't see why. It is exactly the kind of 'hypocrisy' some people here
would like, because it allows the packaging of some interesting software
that are not osi-compliant, without being unacceptable. For example,
and from the top of my head, there are gdal/libgeotiff, scilab, openmotif.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list