On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > I completely fail to see any logic here: > > * cdrtools, obviously completely non-free, is in main > > what? you think if it is non-GPL than it should go to non-free? This > is nonsense. No. The primary issue is that the mixture of a GPL+CDDL work creates a work that cannot be distributed by anyone else but the copyright holder. We don't even have to get into the argument of whether or not the CDDL is DFSG Free or not so long as this is the case. See #377109 et al. > And, please, don't tell me that CDDL is less free than 3-clause BSD, > etc. Clearly it is, but that's not at issue here. > I'd like to see current Debian leaders to comment on this > *political* issue and stop minority discrimination right there. The people involved in maintaining the cdrtools package have been commenting on this issue. They're the ones whose opinion actually matters first. [ftpmaster's opinion is next; unless you're calling for a GR about CDDL.] In this case, the bug has been refered to the tech-ctte, so when they make a ruling, you'll know about it. > > * dvdrtools, a fork of the last GPLed version, is in non-free > > dvdrtools - totally useless effort. Besides, its known to be buggy > and linux-only which is against Debian philosophy therefore should > never be in main. Something being linux-only has never precluded it from being distributed in main, just like a program which only runs on a single architecture. Even then, the only kernel we officially support right now is the linux kernel. Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature