Re: Draft new DFSG
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> * because it is of very low quality, and there is already a far superior
> Joey> alternative that is also free
> Joey> * because it implements something inherently unsecure, or is written in such
> Joey> an insecure manner that fixing it would require a rewrite
> Joey> * because it is 5 gb in size and will only be used by a few hundred people
> Joey> on earth.
> None of these reasons make them non free software. And that is
> what the dfsg is folks. I shall spell it out:
> The DEBIAN FREE SOFTWARE GUIDELINES. ``FREE''. Bah. None fo
> the reasons cited above make the software less free.
Please read what I said in the context of the thread I said it in. I was
replying to someone who objected to this:
| We add a preamble saying both that:
| 1) Although meeting the DFSG is a necessary condition for a package to
| be included in the main Debian, not every package that meets these
| guidelines will necessarily become part of Debian, and one shouldn't
| view the fact that some program is not part of Debian as a statement
| by the Debian maintainers that said program does not meet the DFSG.
| We (the Debian developers) may opt to keep certain packages out of
| Debian for reasons other than those specified in the DFSG.
This is a perfectly valid thing to add as a *PREAMBLE* to the DFSG, not as a
part of the definition. I never claimed those conditions made software
non-free, I claimed they made it unsuitable for inclusion in debian.
see shy jo