Re: A sensible plan for non-free
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Therefore, I propose the following:
>
> Non-free and contrib should stay exactly where they are. They should be in the
> current bug system and in every way, from a development point of view, they
> should be dealt with in the way that we currently deal with them.
>
> The change I suggest is that the non-free and contrib sections be protected by
> certificate authentication. Certificates will be distributed to 3rd parties
> who sign up as an official 3rd party distributor of the non-free and contrib
> sections. All developers will also be issued a certificate for development
> purposes. Beyond these groups no end user will be able to download non-free
> or contrib software from a Debian controlled server.
>
> All 3rd party distributors will execute an agreement with Debian indemnifying
> Debian against damages that result from their distribution of software
> retrieved from Debian servers. It will be up to these organizations to
> establish a valid business model for their distributions and to take
> responsibility for any legal mishaps that occur because of their actions.
>
> This plan is precisely in line with current 3rd party CD distribution
> policies. It simply reorganizes network distribution to follow a structure
> similar to the well established physical distribution. Most importantly it
Have you thought how well this would work with ftp, http and rsync
mirroring and changes in the Debian infrastructure?
I mean, if all first level mirrors will have non-free and contrib
removed, somebody will grab the files and we'll end up with a mirror
network that contains Debian (i.e. main) and several undocumentatly
distributing contrib and non-free as well, making the situation only
worse for us and our users.
> ends Debian's distribution of non-free without adversely impacting current
> development procedure.
Since many people loudly vote for keeping non-free, do you think you
would really make them smile when locking away non-free?
> I would like to hear opinions on whether this plan requires a further General
> Resolution or whether it could be adopted as a methodology of fulfilling
> Proposal-0008 and put into action by the DPL if the DPL is so inclined.
Since it gets into conflict with the social contract wrt. distribution
of non-free software, it'll require a GR as well, I guess.
Regards,
Joey
--
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall
Reply to: