Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

Quoting 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.

I believe they have, but if not file a bug and they will be moved. We've even
(finally) moved nvidia_* and ati_driver to z-rejected. ;)

> > 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.

Or OSI approved? Since I think our ISO has some BSD, PD, and MIT licensed
software on it, but I haven't thouroughly looked. Our ISOs come with the 
stable
grimoire, which has quite a few licenses, which is why I was questioning the
strict GPL license wording, which may not be true.

-sandalle

--
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/  #196285  |  http://www.shock.wsu.edu/

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.