On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:15:31PM -0400, Eric Gerlach wrote: ... > I don't view non-free as some kind of refuse bin for the licences that > don't make the cut. I view it as a place where I can choose packages > from other licenses if I please. well put and echoes my sentiments exactly. non-free allows me to make a decision about whether to use non-free software or not. I am not forced one way or the other. > > Brain-dumping here: maybe Debian needs a "might-be-free" archive? Or > maybe just "gnu-free" for GNU licenses that aren't DFSG-free? That > might also help with some of the non-free doc packages (if there are any > around anymore). within the context of debian and DFSG, it seems that free/contrib/non-free are well defined. While there might be a connotation that something is truly not free by being in debian's non-free repos, that is simply not the case. it just means it doesn't comply with DFSG in some way. At least that's how I understand it. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature