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

Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:57:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
> > This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria above others
> > in importance.  If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less
> > discriminatory way would be to flag (internally or on a central web
> > site somewhere) each package in non-free according to which parts of
> > DFSG it fails.
> I think it would be more manageable to flag freedoms that the package
> still does provide, for example
>    modified-noncommercial-redistribution
>    unmodified-noncommercial-redistribution
>    unmodified-commercial-redistribution
>    all-freedoms-in-the-gfdl
>    dfsg-freedom-of-all-runnable-programs
>    dfsg-freedom-of-all-main-cpu-runnable-programs

Euh, what are those two last ones ? 

> or preferrably some shorter names :-)

Yes. We should declare such a field, and provide a description of those flags,
and then we can go and examine all of those packages in non-free and submit
patches to the maintainer to include this line or NMU them.

As aj said there is no in-principle opposition to this, anyone can do this
job, i believe, but it is best to clarify the terms used first.

> That is, list reasons why somebody might want to *accept* the package
> on his machine (or his redistribution) rather than list reasons why
> somebody might wanto to *exclude* it. That way an overlooked tag would
> lead to failure on the side of caution, and new tags could be added to
> the system without retroactively reclassifying all packages in
> non-free.

Seems cool.

CCing to debian-legal in order to obtain advice on the different terms and


Sven Luther

Reply to: