[CA cert] Re: An apology and an announcement

["John A. Martin" <jam AT athene.jamux.com>]

>>>>> "Ryan" == Ryan Verner
>>>>> "Re: Re: An apology and an announcement"
>>>>>  Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:12:46 +0930

    Ryan> On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 23:03, John A. Martin wrote:
    >> You chose a licence that will not meet the criteria of "Debian
    >> Free" which, in my opinion, is a mistake.  The requirements you
    >> cite could, as far as I can tell, very well have been met by a
    >> licence that also met the Debian Free criteria.
    >>
    >> Which specific criteria for Debian Free do you believe would be
    >> counter to the interests of CAcert?

    Ryan> I'm sorry, maybe I've missed something, but why does cacert
    Ryan> want backend code to be "Debian Free" friendly?

As said in an earlier thread:

>>>>> "jam" == John A Martin "Re: Bet"
>>>>>  Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:46:59 -0400

>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Reilly "Re: Bet"
>>>>>  Sun, 8 Aug 2004 22:21:13 +1000

    Nathan> So, the PGP style license satisfies your concerns?

    jam> The PGP style license may be suitable if one wishes to retain
    jam> ownership of the code while benefiting from peer review by
    jam> those willing to purchase a copy of the proprietary source.

    jam> IMHO one is more likely to get wide interest and therefore
    jam> better review using the GPL or another licence that meets the
    jam> criteria for "Debian Free Software" (See the section "The
    jam> Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)" under
    jam> <http://http://www.debian.org/social_contract>).  Moreover,
    jam> in my view, anything less would appear to be incongruous with
    jam> the aims expressed at <http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=2>,
    jam> "Mission Statement ... [of] a community-based project, [that]
    jam> is not driven by profits".

        jam

Attachment: pgpIg6H4TLjXk.pgp
Description: PGP signature