On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 11:55 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > Such packages are not formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes > and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers. ... > An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some > practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not > like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of > official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the > case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to > these packages. This claim that non-free isn't part of Debian has always made me slightly uncomfortable, since never appeared to be true to me, so I feel like we should remove it and replace it with something more clear. Your version goes part of the way there. > We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages > to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether > they can distribute it on their media or products. This vendor sentence seems like a subset of what we should warn about though, there is software in non-free that bans commercial use, so not just redistributors have to worry about it, but plain users too. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part