Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
[...]
> Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
> just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
> seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
> DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works,
> so I am unlikely to do that.
>
> It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me
> to. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never
> been the author of race-hate material and you would find that
> difficult to do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG
> to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly
> everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list
> messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your
> claim is justifiable. Do you?
By the way :
"License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be free software."
If a license contaminate other software, we very probably can't include
it into non-free, as other non-free package won't follow this rule. So
such a package is not distributable by debian.
Well, there may be border case (for example some license speaking only
of CD distribution).
--
Rémi Vanicat
Reply to: