[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [seul-edu] ISO evals

Hi:  I agree.  Non-free software folks have their own sales force.  They 
don't want "volunteers" misstating their capabilities.  :)

Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV

On Tuesday 01 April 2003 18:17, Darryl Palmer wrote:
> I think it pretty much comes down to this:
> 1) We don't have much time, at least before NECC.
> 2) Why should we promote/elevate non-free software to the level of free
> software?
> 3) Do we have the right to distribute it via SEUL/Edu website?
> 4) Can it be distributed via a general mirror site?
> 5) Do we have to show a license agreement to the user before installing
> it, like using it for only non-commercial purposes?
> 6) Can we just make CDs or have other people make CDs and hand them out
> like candy?
> For this release, it will be so much easier for us to walk the line and
> say it is only includable if it is free.
> Darryl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-seul-edu@seul.org [mailto:owner-seul-edu@seul.org] On Behalf
> Of Doug Loss
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:16 PM
> To: seul-edu@seul.org
> Subject: Re: [seul-edu] ISO evals
> Darryl Palmer wrote:
> > Add xplns to the list.  It is free to distribute but the source is not
> > available.
> I let this lay longer than I intended.  We haven't completely decided
> what is and what isn't acceptable for our ISO.  Do we require all
> packages to be Free/Open Source, do we require all packages to meet
> Debian standards for inclusion, do we accept packages that are freely
> distributable even if source isn't available, etc.?  I realize that it
> we go with a laxer standard for inclusion we won't be in lockstep with
> DebianEdu, but I'd hate to see good, useful educational software that we
>   have permission to distribute be avoided for philosophical reasons
> without our having examined our reasoning closely enough.