Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:37:09AM -0800, Eric Sandall wrote:
> There are two parts to this revision of our Social Contract[0] (SC) that I'd
> like to propose.
> 
> The first, this one, is to change some of the wording in Article I of our 
> SC,
> which currently states:
> 
>     * 1* Sourcemage Will Remain 100% Free
> 
> 
> We promise to keep the Sourcemage GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free (as 
> in
> freedom). This means that all software we release will be licensed under the
> GNU Public License, and all of the software included in our distribution 
> will
> be under a GPL compatible license, as defined by the Free Software 
> Foundation
> (fsf.org). All of our documentation will be released under the GNU Free
> Documentation License. While we recognize that these are not the only "free"
> software licenses, we choose to maintain the simplicity that this solution
> provides. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
> SMGL, but we will never make the core system depend on an item of non-free
> software.
> 
> This is what we intend, but this part is where my contention is:
> "...and all of the software included in our distribution will be under a GPL
> compatible license, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (fsf.org)."
> 
> We have other licenses in our grimoires and only binary-only and
> distribution-limiting licenses make it into z-rejected. If "distribution" 
> only
> applies to our ISO, we still include non-GPL software (some drivers, 
> packages,
> etc.) that are not GPL.

Shouldnt binary-only things be moved to the z-rejected grimoire? I dont
think they should've been in the regular grimoire to begin with.

> 
> Should we remove that line or reword it to say, "and all of the software
> required to use our distribution will be licensed under the GPL."?
> 
We could it to say that the software packages included in our main
grimoires is gpl compatible or something like that.

-Andrew