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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be 
> thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any 
> other package in main. This is a quality that many packages in 
> non-free do not share with them. 

There's lots of software in non-free that is freely distributable, but
non-free for other reasons, such as limitations on commercial use.  Non-
free things should go in non-free, even if there's a lack of free

> As I don't have non-free in my 
> apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs to 
> the 'non-free' section would practically mean the same thing as 
> moving them to the trash dump. I guess this step would be far 
> too radical.

Requiring you to add a line or two to sources.list isn't "trashing" anything.

If this is a "radical" move, I'd say the earlier one of moving non-free
software to non-free was an order of magnitude more "radical".

> So, now I'm repeating an idea that I alredy mentioned here, 
> after selfhtml had been kicked:
>  * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
>    non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
>    availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
>    distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.

Distributors can already do this.  I don't think Debian should be expending
time categorizing non-free into "non-free and really non-free"; let people
who would actually use the distinction (distributors) spend the time.
(It'd be a fair bit of time, requiring further analysis of clearly non-free

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: