[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I am not much in favor of such things since there are a certain number of
> non-free software that are open source and that have only litlle problems
> in their license. 

A great deal of stuff is in non-free because of a "little licence problem".
In fact, that's the only reason anything is in non-free.

You sound confused about what is DFSG-free. If something is DFSG-free (aka
open source), it is not in non-free.

> When I started maintaining sympa (a mailing list manager), it was in
> non-free because of a little license problem. I was happy to be able to
> say to people that Debian supported their software and that it would be
> great if they could change the license to be DFSG-free.
> And that's what happened ... sympa has moved to main. So I don't see the
> need of rejecting non-free software out of Debian. All those software are
> potential DFSG-free software.

I don't understand why sympa's authors wouldhave been any less likely to
change the license if sympa had been initially uploaded to

> I think that if we want to change anything we should split non-free in
> open-source and non-open-source or something like this ...

Again, you misunderstand. The Open Source Definition is currently identiacal
to the DFSG. Nothing that complies with the DFSG is in non-free. If we split
non-free to open-source and non-open-source, we would merely be renaming
non-free to non-open-source.

> Concerning your proposition, do you know that non-free & contrib will be
> lost on most of the mirrors ? That would not be good.

I doubt it. I'll bet most mirrors with active admins would begin mirroring

see shy jo

Reply to: