Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
Craig,
> i think you are missing the point entirely.
>
> categorisation of software as either free or non-free according to the DFSG
> is *not* a judgement of quality or merit or worthiness or anything else.
>
> it is a simple statement of whether the software in question is free
> enough to include in the debian main distribution.
Seems to me that this isn't how some of the developers talk...
> if it is completely free with no 'strings' attached then it can go in
> debian main.
>
> if it is free but depends on a non-free program then it can go in
> contrib (e.g. kde and the netscape installer package).
>
> if it is non-free then it may be able to go in the non-free section
> of debian's ftp archive, depending on whether the license allows that
> distribution or not (e.g. we can include qt but not netscape).
I understand what they mean. I just disagree with this method as the best way
to break things up. Not that I am suggesting we change the whole thing.
> RE: your quotation of the Linus interview:
>
> Debian is *NOT* opposed to commercial or non-free software. Our
> focus is on free software but that doesn't make us 'against' non-free
> programs.
That is the way it looks to the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if you
make up your own rules and definitions if you don't really explain them to the
rest of the world.
Our definition of free needs revised. _OR_ we need to maybe see what we can
do to make it seem less like we are passing judgment on the _less_ non-free
software. Does that make sense?
-----
Brought to you by the letters E and K and the number 9.
Paul J. Thompson <thomppj@thomppj.student.okstate.edu>
<http://thomppj.student.okstate.edu/~thomppj/>
--
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: