The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: contrib/non-free policy

On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Herbert Xu wrote:

> Bruce Perens wrote:
> > 
> > That is mostly what confused me. So, replace my last message with:
> > 
> > It's OK to change the policies of non-free somewhat. I don't care if we
> >  distribute source only for some things. However, making
> >  special agreements for packages in non-free is farther than we should go.
> > Don't ask us to change what goes on the official CD.
> > Don't ask us to change what goes in contrib (because that's on the CD).
> 
> Does this mean qt still can't go into contrib even though that its
> authors have oked it?

No. I have read qt's license now three times (I'm no lawyer and it's hard
to understand the license :-) and I think it can go into contrib, since
distribution on CDs is ok with them, even if it's done commercially. (They
say you have to provide the copyright, etc., but that should be fulfilled 
by our `.debs'.)

I think we should focus on the following policy (and I think this has been
the original meaning of the distributions anyways):

      1. Every package in "main" has to apply to the DFSG _and_ may only 
      depend/recommand packages in "main" (to keep the distribution
      consistent.)

      2. Packages which fail one of these two points, may go into contrib,
      if distribution of the packages (`.debs') via our ftp server, its
      mirrors, and on CD-ROMs is allowed without any restrictions on such 
      distribution (for example, payment of a fee or requirement, that all
      other programs on the CD-ROM have to be "free" too).

      3. Packages which fail 1. and 2. may go into non-free, if
      distribution of the packages (`.debs') via our ftp server and its
      mirrors is allowed without any restrictions on such distribution.

Please note, that point 2. and 3. only require that distribution "of the
packages" is allowed, that is, distribution "in the form we provide the
packages" is allowed. For example, if a license only allows distribution
of un-modified binaries, we can distribute the package without problems if
we do not modify the binaries. If modifications are necessary to get the
program running, we can't ship the package at all (in no distribution), or
we find a work-around to distribute the binaries un-modified together with
"patches."

Also note, that points 2 and 3 do not require any other requirement of the
DFSG. (For example, this implies that we are allowed to arrange "Debian
specific licenses" for packages in non-free and even contrib! Bruce, is
this ok with you?)

In summary: We have high requirements for "main" and we do not make any
compromises there. We could have decided to put everything else we are
allowed to distribute via FTP in a larger "non-free" distribution but this
would make things harder for CD vendors. So we seperate
"not-freely-distributable" packages (non-free) from
"freely-distributable-but-fails-main" (contrib) packages.

Here are a few examples:

 - "anacron" is fully GPL and depends only on perl which is itself in
   "main", so it can go into "main" too (as it is now).

 - "qt" fails several points of the DFSG so it can _not_ go into "main".
   However, distribution via FTP _and_ CD-ROM (even commercially) is
   explicitely allowed, so it can go into "contrib".

 - "mysql" fails the criteria for "main" and "contrib" since it does
   not allow commercial distribution on CD-ROM. Distribution "for free"
   via our FTP servers (and mirrors) is fine though, so it can go into
   "non-free".

 - "Windows NT" fails criteria for "main" (no source), and "non-free" and
   "contrib" so we can't distribute it at all. (I think we wouldn't like
   to do so anyways ;-)


Anything else unclear? :-)

I hope that this makes the current policy a bit clearer. If not, we should
continue with this discussion, since this is a very important (if not most
important) part of Debian. (Remember, that we are the only "free" major
distribution out there! If we don't keep these ideas, who else should do
it?)

If you all agree to this, I'll post this on debian-devel, too.


Thanks,

Chris


P.S.: My last changes to the appropriate sections in the draft of the 
policy manual where nonsense, so I changed them back to version 2.2.0.0.

--          _,,     Christian Schwarz
           / o \__   schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
           !   ___;   schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
           \  /        
  \\\______/  !        PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
   \          /         http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
  "DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .