Why only one non-free section?

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortz@pasteur.fr>]

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.