Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive
>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <jbj@image.dk> writes:
Jakob> What I was proposing was, that package maintainers would
Jakob> (by some future policy change not directly related to non-us)
Frankly, I would be opposed to such a policy mod. I am not
convinced that such granularity does not open me up for liability I
can't afford, aqnd I certainly shall not follow such an edict on my
non fre package.
Jakob> be required to state the terms under which they were offering
Jakob> their work (the package) in mechanical terms, just as DVD authors
Jakob> state in mechanical terms which areas of the globe are licensed
Jakob> to use the copyrighted movie.
Bad analogy. The DVD idiocy is not something I want to emulate
in the first place, and in the second, we do state how we are
offering the packages. Either they are part of Debian, or not, and
whether they can live on the Master server, or not.
Jakob> Another way of looking at it is that Debian is *already* doing
Jakob> some of this by dividing packages into main, contrib and non-free,
Jakob> I am simply suggesting one way to add more granularity.
And we are doing this to help promote non free software? Is it
not enough that it is packaged and maintained in the first place?
Jakob> The underlying idea is, that very few people have the time to
Jakob> manually review every /usr/share/doc/x/copyright file on their
Jakob> system and this would allow them to perform fundamental checks
Jakob> much more easily.
Frankly, of the packages are DFSG free, there seems little
need for evaluating copyright; if they are not free, I think people
can spend that time.
Jakob> Another underlying idea is that not all users have the exact
Jakob> same licensing needs as those expressed by DFSG. Some may
But this is Debian. We are defined by the DFSG.
Jakob> be home users who can accept "no-commercial-use" while others
Jakob> may be maintainers of non-free packages who consequently
Jakob> cannot accept GPL libraries as build dependencies.
In order to meet these peoples needs, we already package the
non free junk for them. I see no need to further make deployment of
non free easier, espescially as I feel that entails legal risk.
If you feel strongly about it, feel free ot offer such
granularity on the web (and put money where your mouth it, and assume
all the liability). If you think there is no liability, there should
be no problem; right?
manoj
--
The trouble with some women is that they get all excited about
nothing and then marry him. Cher
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: