[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

       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: