Re: GNU Win32? Not anymore.
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Fernando wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me clarify this issue a little:
>
> There is a new document called "Debian Free Software Guidelines" available
> in the Web site. It overrides any other previous statement which contradicts
> the new one.
>
> This document defines which software qualifies for inclusion in the Debian
> Distribution. It also states that Debian aknowledges the need users have
> for software which does not comply with the Guidelines. The non-free
> directory is provided for exactly that purpose. Any other previous
> definition of "non-free" has been superceeded by the new Guidelines.
>
> The document in question was discussed at large by current developers, who
> overwhelmingly voted to approve it.
I've read this document, and the Social Contract, though I missed
the discussion and vote by being unsubscribed at the time.
I've just spent several hours searching through the debian-devel
list archives for the discussion & vote thread (it took so long
because I'm at the end of a long, slow, and unreliable link).
I searched for "vote", "free software", "non-free", and "social
contract", without finding the discussion and vote thread.
I'm not disputing that the discussion & vote took place, but I
just have not been able to find the thread in the archives so as
to inform myself of the details.
The specific detail I'm after is whether the discussion & vote
involved both "free software" in the Free Software Guidelinse
sense, and the "non-free" area of the ftp sites. What was or was
not said about a relationship (or lack thereof) between these two?
I suspect, as must be clear from my earlier posts, that there
is an unhappy coincidence here of too-similar names for two
different things.
The "non-free" area was originally created specifically to hold
packages which had copyright restrictions which precluded their
being picked up and distributed by a for-profit CD manufacturer
without first obtaining permission from the copyright holders --
on a package-by-package basis. It had a very specialzed purpose --
allowing CD manufacturers to exclude software which had copyright
problems for them by simply not picking up the "non-free" area.
("non-free", IMO, was and is an unfortunate name for this area)
Packages which had no copyright problem with for-profit
distribution but which had some other problem which disqualified
them from the mainline Debian distribution would go in the
"contrib" area which is clearly identified along with the
"non-free" area in the Social Contract as containing software which
is not part of the Debian system. The packages in "contrib",
though, are distributable by for-profit CD manufacturers --
that's what distinguishes them from the programs in "non-free".
("contrib", IMO, isn't an ideal name here either)
The Debian Policy Manual, version 2.2.0.0, 13 July 1997, released
just yesterday, seems to confirm my understanding of the "non-free"
and "contrib" areas.
And, since this is on the Win32 thread, I'll mention again that
(at least as I understand the License restriction issue) Win32
should go in "contrib", not "non-free"; according to my understanding
of the purposes and usages of those areas.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: