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

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
>> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> > copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>> > accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>> > copies.  I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>> > that.
>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> distributable.

> Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
> stuff from the free stuff.

        I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough
 mark the distinction. I am changing my mind about the non-free GR --
 this time, I would vote differently; since even you seem to imply
 that Debian includes non-free software, or close enough as to make no

        If the perception is indeed that Debian distributes non-free
 software (and the distinction that this is  not part of Debian really
 is silly), then I do think we need to move the non-free archive off
 Debian.org machines.

        If distributring non-free software  is not only deemed
 acceptable, but doing so by debian seen as routine,  then we are
 losing the vision of the SC (in my opinion). Either we change the
 social contract, or it is time to clearly mark non-free software as
 such by moving it off our machines.

> I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
> but a majority of us decided it would be /better/ to keep it.

        I was one of that majority. I have changed my mind. I think it
 is far easier now than it was a few years ago to host  any non-free
 packages anyone is interested in. Hell, I'll even volunteer to help
 run such a machine if it means that the non-free software moves off
 debian.org machines.

        I am also now convinced I was mistaken in assuming that we
 label non-free software "clearly". So, I, for one, am reexamining my
 previous support for keeping non-free on Debian machines. Perhaps it
 is coming to the time where the question should again be open for

Where the system is concerned, you're not allowed to ask "Why?".
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: