Re: Why only one non-free section?
On Fri, Sep 11, 1998 at 03:59:40PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> It seems there are a lot of problems with the non-free section, for instance
> CDROM vendors who do not bother to check every licence individually and who
> exclude the whole non-free tree. Basically, it comes from the fact that
> non-free gathers packages which have very different reasons to be non-free.
> One of the authors of a package I intent to manage said (the package can be
> distributed and used without fee but cannot be resold so I'll have to upload
> in non-free):
> >I suggest you change the "non-free" to be two sections, one being
> >"free-but-cannot-be-resold". Otherwise you will have to put it in non-free.
> >If it was in "free-but-cannot-be-resold" then people would know that it
> >was as cost-free to them as in "free".
> It seems that, for CDROM resellers or mirror sites, the most intelligent split of free would be instead between "non-free-but-can-be-put-on-CDROM" and "non-free-other"?
> I assume this discussion was already held, so if someone can explain.
Yes it has been had. Personally I would love to see a split in non-free
like this. I think it would be a Good thing but...
There are allot of non-free packages. Th eproblem is the time involved in
reading each licence and deciding. Also...how do we make the
It is really a big mess...licences are overly complicated... even the GPL
is a PITA if you have never read it before and don' "know it"
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <email@example.com> --- <firstname.lastname@example.org>------------ */
E-mail "Bumper Stickers":
"A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!"
"honk if you Love Linux"