Re: Proposed solution to free/non-free Debate -- Please Read!
Am 14.11.97 schrieb thomppj # thomppj.student.okstate.edu ...
Moin Paul!
PJT> 1. I suggest we revise the wording of the DFSG to be a little more
PJT> non-free software friendly. Not relax our standards, just change the
If we use the DFSG strictly we've to remove a lot of packages from the
main section. This affects for example all doc-linux-* packages. Some
HOWTO authors don't allow changing the content of their HOWTO (PPP/RPM
HOWTO for example). In my opinion we don't need the permission to change
the content, but the DFSG doesn't distinguish between content and format.
PJT> involved. Change non-free to non-dfsg. I know the effort this would
I think we need both sections. We should move all free packages that
doesn't meet our DFSG to non-dfsg and commercial material to non-free.
PJT> require and I have heard the complaints comments. Someone said before
PJT> this was bad because it was harder for a new user to understand but this
PJT> is exactly why I think we should change it. You couldn't help understand
Your're right. A lot of people don't understand the Debian non-free
system.
cu, Marco
--
Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.d400.de Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: mbudde@hqsys.antar.com http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/
--
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: