Re: "non-free" installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
* Tore Anderson
>> Although the installer packages themselves certainly are Free,
>> I feel the social contract is being violated when I have main and
>> contrib in my sources.list file, but after having completed the
>> installation of a package from these sections, non-free software
>> is installed on my system.
* Anthony DeRobertis
> Clearly, we have not violated the Social Contract: Contrib does not,
> per the social contract, need to follow the DFSG (policy imposes
> greater requirements, which is fine).
Oh, er, yes. Policy is indeed what I was thinking about.
> I think it is reasonable to require that installer packages inform the
> user they are about to install non-free software and give the user an
> opportunity to review the license of that software before proceeding,
> though.
At the very least.
Well, anyway I see that most people seem to disagree that it's a dubious
use of contrib, so I'll probably just forget about submitting any bugs on
the installer packages.
--
Tore Anderson
Reply to: