Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> writes:
> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
> """
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not
> conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages are not
> formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes and security updates depend
(Noting mostly for my future self: I'd use a semicolon here instead of a
comma.)
> entirely on their upstream developers. We provide the enabling
> infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
> tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate archive
> areas. 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.
> """
> 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.
Yup, agreed. I like those changes.
> Also, I think a change like this is fine for this GR, but if it
> complicates things, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some
> finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon.
The part of me that likes to do code refactorings and maintenance releases
kind of wants to do a wording cleanup GR yearly or so, just to deal with
ambiguous language and obsolete things like "CDs," but the rest of the
project may find that annoying. :)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: