Re: Licenses for DebConf6
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000, Anthony Towns <email@example.com> said:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> > copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>> > accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>> > copies. I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>> > that.
>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
> stuff from the free stuff.
I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough
mark the distinction. I am changing my mind about the non-free GR --
this time, I would vote differently; since even you seem to imply
that Debian includes non-free software, or close enough as to make no
If the perception is indeed that Debian distributes non-free
software (and the distinction that this is not part of Debian really
is silly), then I do think we need to move the non-free archive off
If distributring non-free software is not only deemed
acceptable, but doing so by debian seen as routine, then we are
losing the vision of the SC (in my opinion). Either we change the
social contract, or it is time to clearly mark non-free software as
such by moving it off our machines.
> I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
> but a majority of us decided it would be /better/ to keep it.
I was one of that majority. I have changed my mind. I think it
is far easier now than it was a few years ago to host any non-free
packages anyone is interested in. Hell, I'll even volunteer to help
run such a machine if it means that the non-free software moves off
I am also now convinced I was mistaken in assuming that we
label non-free software "clearly". So, I, for one, am reexamining my
previous support for keeping non-free on Debian machines. Perhaps it
is coming to the time where the question should again be open for
Where the system is concerned, you're not allowed to ask "Why?".
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C