Re: Quasi-free development tools
ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote on 01.08.96 in <m0ulmhr-0004NpC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>:
Mostly fine, except people are bound to see a conflict between these two
paragraphs:
> Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do
> not allow redistribution of modified source code or our own compiled
> binaries cannot be placed on the Debian FTP site and its mirrors at
> all.
This seems to say that binary-only is flat out ...
> Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) allow
> only distribution of compiled binaries (and thus of which only
> binaries are available), or where the source code which may be
> distributed is not the complete source code required to compile the
> program (ie, the program cannot be compiled using only packages in the
> main Debian distribution), or which depend for their use on non-free
> or contrib packages, or allow free use only for a trial period
> (shareware), or are demonstration programs lacking vital functionality
> (crippleware), or are only installer-packages which require the user
> to supply a separate file to be installed, or which fail to meet some
> other policy requirements, may only be placed in the semi-supported
> contrib section of the Debian FTP archives (unless they need to be in
> non-free - see above).
... and this seems to say that binary-only is fine for contrib.
I think the latter is what you really mean (and what we want), so the
first one could possibly use some clearer language.
Hmm. How about this?
Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do not
allow redistribution, or do not allow redistribution after changing the
package (if it needs to be changed in some way for Debian), cannot be
placed on the Debian FTP site and its mirrors at all.
Would that capture what you meant?
MfG Kai
Reply to: