Re: Non-free, Contrib and CDs (Was Re: GNU Win32? Not anymore.)
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu>
> > "Social contract" is an example of using "non-free" term in two
> > _different_ meanings interchangeably. (As _all_ the software that does not
> > conform with "free software guidelines", and as a _subset_ of this
> > software, still suitable to be placed under non-free directory).
>
> Oh. I see what you are getting at. The "non-free" directory is the
> directory of software that doesn't meet the free software guidelines
> but we still have the right to put it on our FTP site. This is a subset
> of the broader category of non-free software. We don't have the right to
> put Applixware's SDK in the "non-free" directory on our FTP site, although
> it is non-free by our guidelines. Socrates is a man, but not all men are
> Socrates :-)
>
> I'm really loath to reopen the discussion on the guidelines at this
> time, and I don't think this issue merits it.
>
> The above could merit a note in the developer's documentation for the
> Talmudic Interpreters among us. I don't see that it merits more than that.
>
O.K :-), but in my view, the "guidlines" were about "free" software, not
non-free software. Therefore, they don't really control or have anything
to do with how we organize the non-free stuff. All the guidlines do, is
say, "certain software can't be in the main debian distribution." they
don't say what we do with them afterwards.
Shaya
--
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: