Re: GR: Removal of non-free
>
> If that's the worst problem that is only solved by non-free, I'd say
> we're doing pretty well.
>
I suspect the potential complete removal of GDFL documentation from the
distribution is probably a worse problem.
There are also the programs, like povray - which are 'too free' in that they
can be freely distributed, but can not be sold for a profit. A lot of Amateur
Radio programs come into this category, or into the expressly limited in their
licence to only being used by Radio Amateurs. This is because a nit picking
reading of the terms of use of the packet radio network may require this.
There also seem to be quite a lot of programs which deal with the GIF file
format
(usually along with other formats, such as PNG) but which from the authors
point
of view are DFSG free.
The most high profile programs in non-free are probably the large number of
Netscape versions, and other programs which do not have distributed source.
This last category is probably the one which has the greatest number of
potential DFSG free equivalents. These are probably the 'low hanging fruit'
of non-free, which could be removed with least impact.
I would like to see a more thorough analysis of the impact of removal of
non-free
before a vote, and some assistance for people who use the programs to help them
move to something better (and improvements to the free equivalents where they
exist so that they are an obvious superset of the non-free versions)
We are running a computer system for our users, and have a responsibility to
handle transitions for major changes as smoothly as possible.
Is there, for example, a web page with a table of every non-free package, with
a suggestion for a free equivalent, to help users migrate ?
John
p.s. It is unfortunate that the section is called non-free, which carries a lot
of implications, rather than read-the-license, since that is what it means.
You can make blanket assertions about what you can do with packages in main
(and
contrib with caveats) and non-free just means that you can not make such
assertions and must read the licence of each package to decide if, in your
particular case you can sell it, use it to run a nuclear power station, use it
in certain countries or whatever.
Reply to: