sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?
- From: Robert Figura <rfigura AT aubergine.zwischengesicht.de>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:41:45 +0100
Am Thursday 03 November 2005 07:28 schrieb Sergey A. Lipnevich:
> I'd like to second this on a condition that 95% of spells in the main
> grimoire are actually "free" in this sense (otherwise it's probably not
> worth it). We may also want to move stuff back from z-rejected if it's
> GPL or similarly licensed, but binary, and create z-binary section.
> It's not clear how to set up "detached" z-rejected so that it's still
> under our control. Can its source reside on the same physical server but
> under a different host name (vhost)? Alternatively, if we switched to
> something like monotone or darcs, if I understand correctly there's no
> need for central repository at all, so the biggest issue with z-rejected
> may become publishing it, not maintaining. Free or not, many people
> worked hard to build z-rejected, and it's a valuable asset of SMGL.
I think it would only be necessary to package a FSFree SMGL iso, with the
non-free software stripped. Just because i'm a developer doesn't mean i
have to restrict my development machine to free software. The GPL doesn't
say anything about the development process, only about the resulting
source. If we can trim SMGL to comply FSF rules doesn't mean we all have to
end up with the small-but-free version.
After all, the social contract is a contract between developers and/resp.
user base, not between a human being and a linux distro. I can't see the
point why the same community shouldn't support two (very similar) distros.
Why not regularly spawn a free iso?
Hmm... sorting the grimoires, remove some z-rejected references, make free
compliant docs, package an iso from it. Looks like affordable.
Maybe i didn't get it, though. But it shouldn't be harder for a source based
distro to get on that list than for a binary.
I've actually taken a look at the links on the list and i can't believe it.
Again i lost sight of the benefits.
Regards
- Robert Figura
--
/* mandlsig.c v0.23 (c) by Robert Figura */
I=1702;float O,o,i;main(l){for(;I--;putchar("oO .,\nm>cot.bitamea\
@urigrf <raguFit erobR"[I%74?I>837&874>I?I^833:l%5:5]))for(O=o=l=
0;O*O+o*o<(16^l++);o=2*O*o+I/74/11.-1,O=i)i=O*O-o*o+I%74*.04-2.2;}
-
[SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 11/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/03/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?, Robert Figura, 11/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 11/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 11/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 11/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?, John Harding, 11/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
George Sherwood, 11/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?, Seth Alan Woolley, 11/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 11/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Seth Alan Woolley, 11/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 11/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Ladislav Hagara, 11/03/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?, Seth Alan Woolley, 11/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?, Maurizio Boriani, 11/03/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/03/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.