Re: Clarifications
>>>>> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
Hamish> Let's create the add-ons directory and move contrib and
Hamish> non-free in there, as Anthony proposed. (I already
Hamish> seconded that.) That's good enough to show it's not part
Hamish> of the distribution, but to ensure quality at the same
Hamish> time. At present we claim that non-free and contrib are
Hamish> not part of Debian but it sure looks like it on the FTP
Hamish> site, I'll agree.
This does sound like a reasonable compromise. What bothered me was
that slink (my first Debian system) came with non-free and contrib
right in the default sources.list. Browsing through dselect, one
might never even know that Debian separated non-free software out. I
noticed that the potato installer currently asks you if you want to
use non-free. Perhaps for woody (which is what we're talking about,
remember) it could say something like
"Would you like to use any add-on software? This software is not part
of the Debian project, but we have packaged it for use with a Debian
system. Be sure to read the license for any add-on software
carefully, which can be found in
/usr/share/doc/<package name>/copyright."
Certainly though, I think the *guarantee* that Debian will distribute
non-free software should still be removed from the Social Contract.
This seems like very bad form. Imagine if the Social Contract also
said that Debian would also distribute KDE (I know, different issue,
but I hope the point is clear).
Reply to: