Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?
[Can we *PLEASE* move this conversation to an appropriate list, like
-project? MFT: set appropriately, and Cc:'ed for good measure.]
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 09:07:58AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > But why can people only use documentation if it's in Debian main?
>
> Let me try to explain it:
>
> We agree that there's several software where not DFSG-free
> documentation [1] is required for many usages of the software.
Probably not required, since the documentation isn't a Depends: of the
package, merely a Recommends: or Suggests:. [Let's s/required/useful/
and continue.]
> Unless I want to search and use the upstream documentation locations
> of every affected software I use, I have to add non-free to my
> sources.list and take care that I install the now separate
> documentation packages for all software I use.
In almost all cases the documentation is already separated... but lets
continue on anyway.
> The second point might only be a minor nuisance for me, but the
> first one will tell me that Debian would be much less usable if I
> wouldn't use non-free.
So you're objecting to the fact that the non-free documentation is
going to be present in the non-free part of the ftp archive? Fine. You
have my permission to call the non-free part of the ftp archive
"freedom impaired." Does that help?[1]
Or is it that you want Debian to ship the non-free documentation in
main so you can close your eyes to the fact that the documentation is
not free?
> If Debian continues to get much "Debian anyway considers everything
> non-free" reputation for being more fundamentalistic than even RMS,
> less external people will seriously consider comments of Debian on
> licence problems.
So we should not worry at all about licensing issues? How would Qt
have been relicensed then?[2][3]
> What do you win by moving things to non-free?
We make the separation between which works are free, and which works
are not free quite clear and distinct. That's it. Surely it's more
logical to do that than to ship non-free works in main?
Don Armstrong
1: Hell, I'll even set up a redirect alias that points to an
appropriate mirror of the non-free package list if this is a major
sticking point.
2: Astute observers will note that the incompatibility of the QPL with
the GPL and the DFSG may be partially Debian's fault.
3: As a final note, it's not like any of the license deliberations
have been reached in vacuo or in camera. If anyone feels that specific
errors have been made in -legal's determination of a license's status,
please, please, read the appropriate list archives where the license
has been discussed, and point out the errors. Even though everyone on
-legal tries to do a thorough, fair, and impartial job, mistakes are
made from time to time.
--
Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
-- Jules Bean
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: