Re: Non-free, Contrib and CDs (Was Re: GNU Win32? Not anymore.)
> From: Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mozcom.com>
> > My concern centers more around the "non-free" name than anywhere else.
> > As I understand it from the Debian Policy Manual, "non-free" means,
> > in this usage, something like "not freely redistributable".
>
> "Non-free" means that the license does not conform to the "Debian Free
> Software Guidelines" which we published recently. If there is another usage
> in Christian's draft version of the manual at
> http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-policy/draft/ ,
> please tell him and he'll fix it.
When you say "non-free software", do you imply, say applixware by that?
I do. 'Cause it is not free :)
But it is not what implied by "non-free" directory on Debian side.
That is the reason I think to rename it to something more specific.
(BTW, what meaning of non-free was used in the first paragraph of Social
contract:
We will support our users who develop and run non-free
software on Debian, ...
Software suitable for non-free directory, or just all that not free?)
Thank you.
Alex Y.
>
> "Contrib" means the package complies with the free software guidlines
> except that source is not available, or it is in some way not desirable
> to put the package in the release.
>
> > I think the categories above essentially break the current "non-free"
> > area ("non-free" as defined in the Debian Policy Manual, that is),
> > up into two areas: No-Profit and No-Sell. How about lumping them
> > back together again, and renaming them something like
> > "Restricted-Distribution", to avoid the confusion over the two
> > different usages of the term "non-free"?
>
> Well, we call them both "non-free" now, and non-free includes various kinds
> of restricted distribution or restricted use.
>
> Regarding the interpretation of licenses, we have to interpret whether
> a license fits in our guidelines, and then if it goes in contrib or
> non-free. I do not think it would be a good idea for us to interpret
> licenses any further. For example, if we start saying "this is OK for
> you to use but not for you to distribute", we are really giving more
> unqualified legal advice than I see as the role of the project. People
> who want to use the programs in non-free for their businesses should
> read the licenses and provide their own interpretations. Thats why the
> licenses are there.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
> --
> Bruce Perens K6BP bruce@pixar.com 510-215-3502
> Finger bruce@master.debian.org for PGP public key.
> PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +-------------------------------------------+
| _ 7 | Alexander Yukhimets |
\ (") | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +-------------------------------------------+
--
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: