Re: Freely distributable non-free packages
On Mon, Dec 07, 1998 at 05:20:00PM +0100, Bart Schuller wrote:
> The last time this subject came up, it was shot down because it could
> make Debian liable for damages resulting from misclassifications.
I remember the recent discussion about non-us and how we don't want to be
responsible for saying what's allowed in each country. That's why the
non-de, non-us, non-fr, etc subsections (and other proposals) didn't come to
In the case of subclassifying non-free packages, we're simply specifying
exactly why we think a package is non-free; we should know that, since any
package in non-free has a reason.
Notice the subtle difference: here, we are providing information that people
can use to make decisions. We are not actually giving legal advice as to
who is allowed to distribute packages (after all, it's still non-free, and
we aren't recommending you actually USE it.)