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

Re: Darwin Streaming Server

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:55:40PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:36:11AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> > easier classification of software into main, contrib and non-free
> > sections. And again, being in non-free would not mean you can't use it!
> I dont get it. What is wrong with the current classification? Nobody is
> talking about saying that non-free is unuseable. But I fail to see why we
> need a new definition for main.
> "If it fits the DSFG (and/or is certified by opensource.org) it is main".
> This is the current definition of main and there is nothing wrong with it.

The problem is Debian does not have a definition of free. It is a guideline only. This is something someone here pointed out to me. I think
that Debian needs a solid definition so that there is no ambiguity of where what software goes. For instance, see the licensing problems
with gnuplot. [in bugs]. And it is clear from the copyright of gnuplot that it should be under Other licenses.

> > and Other would just mean to read the license of the software carefully
> > before using it in your software or whatever. It would make things a lot
> > easier for people trying to find software [like library or whatever] that
> > fits their needs.
> Yes, I agree. For example a GPL Lib may not fit most needs. But on the other
> hand, ready the copyright file is not that hard. If you evaluate a lib
> reading the description line is not enough, anyway.

Well, it's not difficult - it just takes a very long time as you have to DL the source of the software and then examine what license the
thing is exactly under. I think it would actually save bandwidth to have a few bytes that describe the license of the software package.

As for GPL libs, I think it is good for companies that make software for themselves as they never have to actually release their source
because they never distribute the binary :) It is only when you want to sell stuff that GPL might be in the way and you would want LGPL or

Anyway, I guess this might be the end of the long discussion on freedom :) Unless someone wants to have a vote on whether to add "License"
line to Packages.

-- Adam

Reply to: