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

Re: Whether remotely running software is considered "software" for Debian.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:51:16AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Actually, I haven't seen anyone citing the following part of policy
> > 2.2.1: "None of the packages in the main archive area require software
> > outside of that area to function."
> > 
> > If we agree that "functioning software" does more than print an error or
> > a usage note, this part makes it rather clear where free client software
> > to non-free server software belongs.
> It also would apply to anything where the server isn't packaged (in
> main)—whether or not a free server exists.. 

> The plain wording of Policy requires that the server (if it's required
> for the client to operate) not only be free, but also be packaged in
> main.
Or, instead, the way some people read it requires that.

> That clearly doesn't match historical or current practice.

> Policy is not the Social Contract, Policy is not the Constitution. Policy
> can be relatively easily changed and is supposed to largely document actual
> practices. So really, Policy needs to be amended. And attempting to
> language-lawyer Policy like this is pointless.
I don't it *needs* to be amended as there is no data that the current
policy language cause problems.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: