What do you win by moving things to non-free?
On 4/16/05, Daniel Burrows <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> A lot of people can't understand why we would consider software that comes
> with source code, is freely distributable, and may be modified in any way to
> be non-free simply because its license states that you may not use it if you
> are a business/work at a nuclear plant/are a member of a neo-Nazi group. So,
> should we put software like that into main so that they don't "think the
> differences between free and non-free software are pretty small"?
How about having a new section, "open-source", or something, for the
things that fall in the category described above? (i.e. software that
is _almost_ free, but has some small limitation over some freedom)
I know that having a new section would be a bit cumbersome, but I do
feel that the mixture of different "freeness" in non-free is a bit
unfair for those pieces of software that just fail a small point.
Would this be possible?