Re: Idea for non-free organization
Robert Woodcock <rcw@oz.net> writes:
>
> Manoj probably won't like this, since it borders on giving legal advice, but
> here goes:
No, he didn't like it, and for good reason.
> Instead of splitting non-free into different directories like cd-ok (etc etc
> etc), why can't we put another tag into the package's control file, called
> 'Redistribution:', and set it to values like 'dfsg', 'cd', 'commercial',
> 'exclusive', 'government', 'ftp', all of which could be excluded with 'no-'?
IMO, this is exactly the opposite of the approach we should take.
In the earlier thread "Re: Having a non-free and a non-cd branch?",
several people suggested that we are currently guaranteeing to CD
vendors the freeness of the main distribution.
AFAIK, we do not explicitly guarantee that, but I think we should
add a strong disclaimer to the Official CD site, advising vendors
that, while we make a good faith effort to ensure that the packages in
main are DFSFG compliant, and therefore, freely distributable, we do
not warrant that. The same notice should advise vendors to review
the copyright files themselves.
As several people have pointed out, despite our efforts, too many
packages that fail the DFSG make there way into the distribution.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <hilliard@flinet.com>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: