On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > If you compare this to Andrew's (which is similar, if not the same as, > the current SC): > > We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses > of the packages in these areas and determine if > they can distribute the packages on their CDs. > > His wording has no chance of implying a guarantee on main. Though it > does need to be fixed, IMO, because "CD manufacturers" is very > limiting. Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free on their CDs? People who redistribute online are already in the clear; that's the minimum requirement for non-free in the first place. I can't think of any other groups that are worth explicitly encouraging. It's not like this is a restriction of some form. Note that the point is that sometimes packages in non-free may *not* be included on CDs (it's happened before, I don't know if there are currently any) because charging a fee for copying is prohibited, or some similar restriction - so CD manufacturers have some work to do, and they're being encouraged to do it (rather than just not distribute non-free at all). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature