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

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 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

Reply to: