Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
> Again, I think by this logic, the entirety of software included in the
> Debian archive that is used to access a network service could be labeled
> "contrib" or "non-free". I think that's a serious mistake. Debian has no
> control over the operators of external SaaS providers. To embed this --
> oversight? -- into Debian policy is, in my opinion, opening a Pandora's box
> and a grave mistake.
Let me be clear what should be considered 'Free':
Any web services, for which both the client and server are:
1. Free Software [1]
*and*
2. Interchangeable Web Service Provider (i.e. you can install both
client and server on 'localhost') -- this is the ultimate test of
'Desert Island'.
Anything that does not meet requirement 1 -or- 2 is not fully Free
Software, and therefore should go to 'contrib'.
Examples of Free Software:
Clients for HTTP (like IceWeasel, Chrome) and IRC (X-chat, KVirc)
protocols are Free Software. You can install server at any location
and just target your clients to those locations.
Examples of Not-so-Free-Software:
Facebook and Google GDrive (fuse-gmailfs) are not Free.
[1] Free Software implementations must exist in Debian. For new
protocols, both client and server parts must be introduced together.
If only client or only server exists as Free Software, it should go to
'contrib' until corresponding Free Software part is developed.
>opening a Pandora's box and a grave mistake.
You speak about grave mistake. What risks do you see ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
Reply to: