Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
Paul J Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
[ Reordered to something sane ]
> > In the process I came to the conclusion that "non-free" is a
> > misleading term - maybe it should be renamed "non-dfsg". A fair
> > number of packages in there are free, just not as "free" as we
> > would like them to be. I'll probably get flamed by lots of GPL
> > people, but I don't have a problem with someone who wants to
> > protect their hard work.
> Short and simply, I second this suggestion. Anyone else agree?
Most definitely not.
Debian has a definition of free, it's in the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. Software which is not free by that definition goes into
the non-free section on our ftp site. It's in non-free on *Debian's*
ftp site, because it isn't considered free by Debian. What's the
James - DFSG. Why are there developers who a) haven't read it? and b)
appear to be opposed or completely apathetic to the
fundamental idea behind it (free software)? *sigh*
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .