Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit address@hidden dies 01/05/2006 hora 20:24:
> GNU explicitely does *not* support the "freedom" to distribute
> non-free software.

I may have misunderstood something:

- does emacs forbids writing non-free software?
- does gdb forbids debugging non-free software?
- does ddd forbids debugging non-free software?
- does gcc forbids compiling non-free software?
- does make forbids building non-free software?
- does cons forbids building non-free software?
- does autoconf forbids building non-free software?
- does bash forbids running non-free software?
- does gnash forbids running non-free software?
- does guile forbids running non-free software?
- does dejagnu forbids testing non-free software?
- does grub forbids booting non-free software?
- does linux forbids running non-free software?
- does hurd forbids running non-free software?

Why the hell was the LGPL invented for, if not to support proprietary
software developers wanting to use free software libraries?

Have your read why the LALR(1) C parser output of Bison is not free
software, but public domain instead?

> The GCC case is a strategic compromise. Such compromises need to be
> weighted very cautiously, and DRM mechanisms clearly fall a long way
> outside any acceptable comprimise.

Do you have documents backing your assertion about GCC being special
about it's relationship with proprietary software?

Do you have documents stating that ``GNU explicitely does *not* support
the "freedom" to distribute non-free software''?

Curiously,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature