Re: Microcode license [#3]

[Walter Landry <landry@physics.utah.edu>]

> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 
> > Adding something like: ``In addition, you may freely distribute copies of
> > this microcode'' would be fine. Adding something like ``Special permission
> > is given for this microcode to be distributed by the Debian project.''
> > would probably also be fine.
> 
> Um, granting only Debian permission to distribute might get it in
> non-free, but certainly doesn't allow it to be part of Debian.
> 
> Thomas

This gets into the sticky area of what "Debian" is.  A license
specific to Debian wouldn't allow any private mirrors.  Since "Debian"
is not entirely well-defined, many official mirrors might fall into
the category of "private mirror".  So we should, as a matter of
policy, not put things into non-free that can't, at least, be freely
_distributed_ over the internet.  They can have all sorts of wierd
"non-commercial use" clauses or just be raw binaries (like netscape)
that put it into non-free, but we have to be able to distribute it
freely.  Otherwise, all we can do is make an installer.

Regards,
Walter Landry
landry@physics.utah.edu