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

Re: Draft new DFSG

On 25-Nov-98, 15:15 (CST), Martin Bialasinski <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> wrote: 
> I object. If a license is DFSG compliant, there must not be a way to
> exclude a package from main.

[And several others concurred -- this is just the particular message to
which I replied.]

Crap. The fact that a package is DFSG free does not and cannot require
Debian to include it in the distribution. Suppose I create a package

a) is effectively maintained (kept current, compiles on all supported      
platforms, etc.)

b) is not buggy (does what it is intended to do, no crashes, etc.)

c) is only 50 kb. (not an excessive space hog)

d) when run, sends an email to stevegr@debian.org containing the list of
users and their passwords from the host on which it is run.

Are you, the Debian maintainers, going to allow that package into
the distribution? Of course not. We've already (temporarily, in most
(perhaps all) cases) yanked packages for far more obscure security

My point is that there a lot of possible reasons to not include
something in the distribution, and that not meeting the DFSG is only one
of them.

All that said, given a package that is something we would choose to
include, the distinction between 'main' and 'non-free' and 'not at all'
needs to be determined by the DFSG. If a package manages to meet the
letter of the DFSG, but is an obvious attempt to violate the spirit
thereof, then we need to properly ammend the DFSG to close the loophole,
or else accept that we can't have a perfect requirement, and let the
occasional misfit slip through.


Reply to: