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.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .