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

Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Alex Yukhimets wrote:

> > > Another expression of the same:
> > > - We do not tolerate other views, approaches, or principles
> > 
> > 	Rubbish. I tolerate DEC just fine. I see nothing wrong with
> >  people writing proprietary software. I just want Debian to be
> >  free. 
> Free of what? :)

Free of any restrictions. No restrictions on who can use it, no
restrictions on who can modify it, no restriction on how much you can
charge for it.

> > >- We do not bother with inferior low lifes who have
> > >  not seen the (GPL) life yet and are refusing to understand
> > >  that we mean GPL when we say free.
> > 
> > 	You are the one making the value judgement. Is internet
> >  explorer free? People say that it is, since there is no up-front cost
> >  to it. Is Nestscape almost free, since it only costs $50? We define
> >  what we mean when we talk about free software. What's so hard to
> >  understand? 
> Exactly, but even WE agree on different levels of freeness:
> we have non-us, non-free (which is still free in some sense - can be
> distributed on our ftp site, etc.). Why not be clear on what we mean
> each time?

Well, isn't this clear, then?

main:       free software according to the dfsg
non-free:   non-free software according to the dfsg
contrib:    free software that depends on non-free software (either to run
            or to compile, or both)
non-us:     software that can not be exported from the USA due to USA

> > > Excellent PR.
> > 
> > 	I agree.
> I don't.

I do.


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: