> The "problem" was that Debian didn't want to use this switch and go the unofficial route.
it's a little bit more complicated: the question had already been discussed one year ago, and the reason Debian didn't go unofficial then is that an agreement was reached with MoCo's Gervase Markham.
Now, one year lated, and six months before Debian's target release, the MoCo's folks suddenly change their mind. My conclusion: the MoCo's folks are not to be trusted.
For some reason, these facts have been underreported. The MoCo are better than Debian at public relations. That does not make their behaviour less wrong.
What stroke me the most is not the amendement itself, but the reasons given in the discussion. Several representatives from all parties have recognised that the internet has the potential to broaden the access to culture a lot, and affirmed that this potential should not be wasted.
It might be that the proposed solution has strong drawbacks, it might be that the decision will be reversed in the end, but it is very important to see this essential question of the 21th century be tackled for the first time in a political institution.
The winds are turning, folks! The RIAA'd better begin to think of *constructive* proposals.
Using software patents to impose a licence on developpers is plain wrong. It's just what we hate with MS and the likes.
Plus this will divide divide the community (what about the BSD folks...).
We should use patents only against patents. What about a GPL-like model, where all patents used in conjunction with RH patents in the same software suite would have to be licenced the same way ?
Slashdot Mirror
> The "problem" was that Debian didn't want to use this switch and go the unofficial route.
it's a little bit more complicated: the question had already been discussed one year ago, and the reason Debian didn't go unofficial then is that an agreement was reached with MoCo's Gervase Markham.
Now, one year lated, and six months before Debian's target release, the MoCo's folks suddenly change their mind. My conclusion: the MoCo's folks are not to be trusted.
For some reason, these facts have been underreported. The MoCo are better than Debian at public relations. That does not make their behaviour less wrong.
yes, but don't tell anyone, it's top secret^H^H^H trademarked :)
What stroke me the most is not the amendement itself, but the reasons given in the discussion. Several representatives from all parties have recognised that the internet has the potential to broaden the access to culture a lot, and affirmed that this potential should not be wasted.
It might be that the proposed solution has strong drawbacks, it might be that the decision will be reversed in the end, but it is very important to see this essential question of the 21th century be tackled for the first time in a political institution.
The winds are turning, folks! The RIAA'd better begin to think of *constructive* proposals.
Using software patents to impose a licence on developpers is plain wrong. It's just what we hate with MS and the likes. Plus this will divide divide the community (what about the BSD folks...). We should use patents only against patents. What about a GPL-like model, where all patents used in conjunction with RH patents in the same software suite would have to be licenced the same way ?