Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> dfsg-freedom-of-all-runnable-programs
> free-software-and-firmware
>> dfsg-freedom-of-all-main-cpu-runnable-programs
> free-software
Given the historically demonstrated ambiguity of the term "software" I
think it would be advisable to leave it out here.
> There's probably also the "free-use" and "nonprofit-use" properties --
> can I use this package without having to worry about the license, can
> I use it at home, or at work as well?
Yes. Now we're at it, perhaps there should be "buildd-safe", with an
appropriate specification. Or am I wrong when I assume a major reason
why non-free is not autobuilt is worries that not all licences in
non-free would allow building except by people jumping through
particular hoops?
> I wonder if it would be worth considering a "fsf-free" component that
> offers a Packages file listing packages from non-free with the
> fsf-free tag. Something like that might be non-disruptive and make it
> simpler for the installer and users to deal with some of the more
> important alternative stances on freedom to the DFSG.
Hmm. Does apt suppport having a Packages file separate from the pool
whose files it refers to? It would be cool to be able to generate
Packages files for one's particular combination of
freedoms-I-care-about-personally, and then fetch the files from a
general mirror.
In any case, I agree that it would be worthwhile to offer officially
abridged Packages files for certain popular combinations.
>> That is, list reasons why somebody might want to *accept* the package
>> on his machine (or his redistribution) rather than list reasons why
>> somebody might wanto to *exclude* it.
> That's kinda kludgy for the "free-software /
> free-software-and-firmware" tags, afaics.
Could you elaborate on that? I don't really get which kludginess you
are referring to - my description was intentionally aimed at people
who say "I welcome any package on my box as long as all its executable
code comes with the freedoms of the DFSG". For such persons,
free-programs or free-programs-except-firmware would exactly be "a
reason why they might want to accept the package".
--
Henning Makholm "Okay, okay, life's a beach."
Reply to: