Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
(Alex Yukhimets) wrote:
> > The more I am think about it the more it seams that having a separate
> > non-cd branch (to include packages that cannot be distributed on cd rom)
> > and a non-free branch (to include programs that are ok to distribute)
> > seams like a really good idea.
> > Has this idea been discussed before and if not what do you think of the
> > idea.
> Yes, this idea was discussed many times and pretty thoroughly :)
> The rationale for current situation is that Debian don't want to take
> responsibility and decide on which of the "problem" packages are still CD-
> distributable and what is not.
I think that refuring to them as "problem" packages is a real insult.
> Another reason is that according to Debian "Social contract" (see
> www.debian.org) this distribution is about "free" software and all the
> non-free packages should be "punished" by not including them into
> Debian Official CD.
Now I REALLY don't like that idea. I think that compines should be
rewarded for distrubating there programs freely even if they are not
willing to distribute them under the GPL licence.
I think that the new K Desktop is a GREAT idea and should be worked into
debian however that will never happen if you insist on keeping this
> I presonaly don't like that second reason very much, but the things are the
> way they are.
And I HATE it!!!!
> Meanwhile, ther are some CD vendors that ship Debian with the portions of
> non-free packages. Ask on debian-user about them.
I might look into them.
I don't think that debian will compete very well with RedHat if you guys
keep this policy up. True fully I chose debian over RedHat because I
didn't like the fact that RedHat was so X based and didn't like the
"cheap" solutions they had to make configuration easier...
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org