Re: [debian-knoppix] Unfreie Pakete
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 07:22:23PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > programs as well, if they provide functionality that is not yet
> > available in Free Software products, if the license is acceptable.
>
> Well it's known that we disagree about this. :)
Just wanted to mention it again. ;-)
I'm glad that we can be of different opinions and still work on the same
thing, though.
> > OpenOffice is missing in your list of programs to remove for a
> > "completeley Free Software" CD, for the same reason you recommended
> > gimp-nonfree for removal. Possibly also KDE.
>
> This is a work in progress.
> We based our decision on the work of the Debian project.
> AFAIK openoffice and KDE are becoming part of Debian GNU/Linux.
> (not of the non-free or contrib sections).
So, whatever the Debian project decides to put into main, will qualify as
"free" everywhere? Is this an official FSF statement?
> As for the patent issues we debated, there cannot be drawn a clear line
> for all cases. The GIF saw real problems with the patent,
> which means this a real danger. And gimp-nonfree is in Debian non-free.
> Thus your question might be more broadly put to the
> appropriate Debian lists.
As far as I know, there is no "official" OpenOffice Debian package. Also,
I don't quite understand why gimp's GIF-Writer qualifies as "non-free",
whereas the OpenOffice GIF-Writer apparently is OK with your definition
of "free".
> > Could you explain why tgif is on the list of programs to remove?
> > tgif is in Debian main.
>
> Oh, that is seems to be a bug, triggered by the entry in the
> available file on the last Knoppix releases.
> (in Knoppix 2003-01-01 /var/lib/dpkg/available: )
> Package: tgif
> Priority: optional
> Section: non-free/graphics
> Installed-Size: 2376
> Maintainer: Adrian Bridgett <bridgett@debian.org>
> Architecture: i386
> Version: 1:4.1.42-2
Again, I find this way of distinguishing between "free" and "non-free"
quite irritating. How would you qualify a program that has components
which are illegal in Germany (DeCSS) or patented/proprietary (divX codecs),
but the program author, who lives in a country with different laws,
states that it is put under the GPL because "it should be"?
There are a lot of programs which state that they are GPL-licensed, but
I won't include them because I do see legal problems.
I'm trying to decide to the best of my knowledge which programs and
packages are good for inclusion, and which may cause problems concerning
redistribution and usage in different countries. Just looking into
an arbitrary table that says "this is free" and "this is non-free",
created by a set of policy writers who happen to share an opinion about what
SHOULD be free and what SHOULD not be, does NOT seem sufficient and
careful to me. No policy statement or database-of-free-programs can
replace your own thinking and research.
Btw, the version of frotz used on Knoppix is also GPL. Please ask Michael
Kleinhenz about this. I don't know why it is on your list of removal
candidates (though it is surely not a very essential package).
Regards
-Klaus
--
Klaus Knopper Technical Solutions & Finances
knopper@linuxtag.org http://www.linuxtag.org/
Phone +49-(0)631-3109371 Fax +49-(0)631-3109372
LinuxTag 2003 - Europes largest Linux Expo Where .com meets .org
_______________________________________________
debian-knoppix mailing list
debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
Reply to: