Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ? "):
...
> This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
>
> Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> a. allow distribution of no source code
> b. allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source code
> needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other sources
> in the Debian distribution).
> c. depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used
> d. allow use only for a trial period
> e. lack vital functionality
> f. are installer packages
> g. fail to meet some other policy requirement
>
> Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> h. disallow distribution for profit
> i. disallow distribution on certain media
> j. disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained
> k. have "any other onerous conditions".
>
>
> My reactions:
>
> Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b).
Yes, if you think about them like that. I haven't expressed it quite
that way.
> It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition
> (k) differs from condition (g). Without such a distinction, non-free
> and contrib overlap.
(k) is there as a catch-all, in case someone comes up with another
example of a bad thing in a copyright.
non-free and contrib do overlap - they are intended to. The way I
have phrased it makes it clear that if a package meets the bad
criteria for needing to be in non-free, and those for contrib, it must
go in non-free.
> The word "onerous" in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with
> the Debian objective to be "a base upon which value-added
> GNU/Linux distributions can be built."
I don't understand this at all.
Ian.
Reply to: