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

> 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).

I think we should also allow distribution of the sort "not modified source
only (modified binary distribution not allowed)" with our diff's and
probably put them in a separate directory to avoid confusion while auto-
compiling. We do not distribute .deb in this case.

> 
>       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?)

I sincerely hope so. This change in policy would not require that
maintainers try to arrange this specific agreements , but if someone
volonteer to do that - why rule out this package?

Thanks,

Alex Y.

> 
> 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!"

-- 
   _ 
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+


--
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 .