Different classifications of non-free [Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?]
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, David Masover wrote:
> I think there should be a similar option with licenses -- from
> "free" to "microsoft", including things in between such as djb or
> reiser style licenses.
>
> Right now, there's only "free" and "non-free". If I am human and
> sane, my _only_ choice is probably "non-free" anyway.
We don't really bother to clasify works beyond those that are free
under the DFSG and those that are not[1], primarily because such a
distinction is inherently a value judgement, and we find all non-free
works unacceptable for inclusion in Debian in the first place.
You, yourself, are more than welcome to read the summaries of the
licenses (and the licenses themselves) of the programs in non-free and
make your own personal decision about whether or not you are willing
(or legally able) to use or distribute or modify them yourself.
Since we aren't in the business of providing legal advice or providing
a moral framework for you, that's a decision that you a really need to
be pursuing and making yourself.
Don Armstrong
1: We additionally consider whether we can even distribute a program,
but that's secondary.
--
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot
possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to
get at or repair.
-- Douglas Adams _Mostly Harmless_
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: