Re: [seul-edu] Re: ISO project--a different approach

[Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 08:31:05PM +0300, Michael Shigorin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:20:45AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > Well, there are going to be a few problems because of differing
> > opinions on what is "free".  In its current state, I don't
> > think Openoffice can be included, for example.
> 
> Ben, you don't like LGPL??  ALT Linux builds are under that exact
> license (as opposed to SISSL).  Another thing is who owns the
> code, but they have (and deserve) the right.
> 
> But -- OK, OK, I'm disappearing :-)

Grr.  As indicated in another post in this thread, the Openoffice
license is *perfectly fine*.  What isn't "free" is something that
requires non-free software to build.

And yes, I know RMS himself built the first GNU software on a
non-free OS.  That's a completely different issue.  (It was expedient to do
so since there was no free OS to build on at the time.)

Just read the DFSG (see http://www.debian.org/social_contract) and you'll
know why the non-free Java build dependency for Openoffice keeps it out of
Debian main.

Ben
-- 
    nSLUG       http://www.nslug.ns.ca      synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
    Debian      http://www.debian.org       synrg@debian.org
[ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0  1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
[ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387  2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]