Re: Binary-only packages
On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Sven Rudolph writes:
> > While the guidelines don't mention this case I don't like to see
> > binary-only packages in the regular distribution. An important part of
> > the Debian notion of free, the availability of source code, isn't
> > given; therefore I suggest to put your package into non-free.
>
> I cannot agree here. I don't think a package should be name non-free just
> because it's source isn't available. I think non-free should (and does) mean
> that the package (that is the binary) is not free to be distributed
>
You are correct in that free does imply freely distributed, but it also
means that the recipient is free to make modifications and distribute them
as well. The freedom to modify the software is what places source
availability in the requirements list for truely free software.
Note that this concept of free has nothing to do with money. In fact,
copyrights that restrict distribution for sale and profit will force a
package into non-free, as easily as any other distribution restriction.
As the requirement for source availability is only explicit in the GPL
form of free software copyright, I can see that it might be vague just
what Debian's policy is on this. I would tend to be conservative on this
issue, but Bruce P. is the final arbiter of these issues.
Luck,
Dwarf
------------ --------------
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257
Flexible Software Fax: NONE
Black Creek Critters e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net
------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------
Reply to: