Re: Debian and non-free
On Wed, Sep 17 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>> Michael Banck wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Non-free is for GNU documentation.
>> > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
>> > couple of sub-categories. Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
>> > "non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
>> > "non-free" for the rest.
>> I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
>> just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.
> I would much prefer to mention the FSF directly, actually. Not because
> it's about their software (or documentation), but because it's about
> their opinion about what is free. So we get:
> - main (dfsg-free)
> - fsf-free (non-dfsg-free, but free according to fsf)
> - non-free-firmware
> - non-free (for all other classes)
I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
documentation under a free license.
If a man has done evil, let him not keep on doing it. Let him not create
an inclination to it. The accumulation of evil means suffering. 117
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C