Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <quango@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Chris> On Jun 27, Kevin Atkinson 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.
Chris> I'll reply at this level (mainly because the next 100+
Chris> messages got way beyond the core issue here...)
Chris> It is a really good idea. However, convincing the individuals with
Chris> strongly-held views who "run" Debian of the goodness of this idea is
Chris> problematic, to say the least.
It is not just strongly held views. It is a matter of
liability. When we start judging which packages are free enough to go
on a CD, we are, in effect, judging the packages, and giving legal
advice (a lawyer on the lists said that this was like practicing law
-- ridiculous as it sounds).
I do confess to being scared about the liability issue.
If anyone feels strongly about this, they may create a list of
packages that they felt was cd-ok; and publish it on a site with
links to the Debian archive site. They assume the liability then.
Chris> only maintainers uploading new versions have to make a
Chris> decision to change "non-free" to "cd-ok" in their
Chris> debian/control file; old packages can stay in non-free, with
Chris> wishlist bugs (if someone wants to file them) saying that the
Chris> license is cd-ok.
Maintrainers now apparently can't even decide if packages meet
DFSG standards, and you expect them to understand law (sometimes,
laws of other countries) in order to decide when it is free enough to
go on a CD?
It has nothing to do with extra work or endorsing software or
any of the other stuff you entioned.
I like my house. You may not have any assets and thus fear no
lawsuits, but I am not so fortunate. I have given hostages to
fortune.
Chris> If they are too stupid to read a license and figure out
Chris> whether it's OK to put the software on a CD or not (i.e. can't
Chris> pick out phrases like "You may redistribute this software in
Chris> unmodified form without restriction."), then they're probably
Chris> too stupid to be maintainers. Not only is this argument an
Chris> insult to the intelligence of hundreds of Debian developers
Chris> (made by an individual in the "if it's not DFSG, it's crap"
Chris> camp, whom one would expect to be more "in tune" with the
Chris> maintainers than his opponents), it's also the perfect example
Chris> of the thoughtless, ad hominem attacks that have characterized
Chris> this debate.
I have posted on just such an incident today, where the
maintainer was unaware that binary only code could not be put in
main/contrib. He was under the impression that since it did not cost
anything, it was free as far as debian was concerned.
This is not an ad hominem attack. This is reality. Happened
less than 2 hours ago.
manoj
--
Date: 26 May 90 00:00:37 GMT From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal
Schwartz) sub isplit { # &isplit(word,string) => array
local($word,$_) = @_; local(@ind,@result,$start,$end); @ind = (0);
s#$word#push(ind,length($`),length($`.$&)),$&#ieg; push(ind,length);
@ind now has pairs of indicies (0-origin) into $_ that bound the
non-$word items; convert into result: while (@ind) { $start =
shift(ind); $end = shift(ind);
push(result,substr($_,$start+$[,$end-$start)); } @result; } print
&isplit("z","JzuZsztZ zaZnzoZtzhZezrZ zPZezrZlz ZhzaZczkZezrZ,");
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: