Re: How free does a non-free package have to be?
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> > In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a "warning" about usage
> > restrictions but no definite statement.
>
> It does not disqualify the package for non-free, but I would ask that you
> consider well how having this package in Debian will help Free Software
> before uploading it to non-free. Are there free alternatives that
> provide some of the features, which could be groomed to do what you need?
> Is the software already in wide use, or will including it in non-free
> increase its visibility -- leading more people to use non-free software?
Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
vendor changes file names, download locations, the internal structure
of their package, etc.), I am examining if it is possible to replace
the installer package with a package that contains the actual
software. So I'm not planning to make more non-free software available
to Debian users, but simply to replace an existing package by
something that is presumably easier to maintain and install.
Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
have. And also, not having access to the source really sucks badly
(even if for non-hackers like me)!
You suggested considering alternatives. So far I haven't heard of any
free-as-in-freedom virus scanner, let alone a production-quality
one. Did I miss something? If yes, please let me know!
Thanks,
Johannes
Reply to: