On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:29:08PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
>
> > * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030909 11:20]:
> > > Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no
> > > distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash?
> >
> > There is exactly one: We are allowed to distribute the manual, but not
> > the Flash player. So installation of the second needs some ugly
> > tricks, and perhaps it would be better to create a new archive
> > "non-free-installers" for this (and similar code).
>
> I see many others differences. Am I dreaming or you can modify almost
> the GNU Emacs manual, you can distribute largely this manual (modified
> or not), you have the preferred form for modification of the GNU Emacs
> manual.
> It does not sounds so similar to be.
>
> I find more differencies than similarities between the two.
One of my software projects was inherited from an older codebase which
had a non-commercial license. You can modify everything in it but the
license test (which must be preserved, but can be appended to); you can
distributed it at will, modified or otherwise; you have the preferred form
of modification.
And it still belongs in non-free (should it happen to be turned into a .deb
at all; *I* haven't packaged it because, frankly, there are equally capable
DFSG-free packages that do more or less the same thing, and I see no reason
to encourage such licenses).
Having 99% DFSG-freeness does not suffice, if the last 1% is non-DFSG-free.
Whether or not it is may still be under discussion, but if it fails,
then it goes to non-free (or vanishes entirely). The only difference
that matters, once that happens, is whether we can distribute it - the
difference pointed out above.
All other freedoms are irrelevant, if it doesn't meet the required set.
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpsIsG0myseQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature