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: merge non-free and contrib?



On 22 Jul 1997, John Goerzen wrote:

> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
> 
> > I think we should consider to merge `non-free' and `contrib' now. These
> > are the arguments for this:
> 
> I disagree.  CD-ROM vendors currently have it easy since they can just
> leave off non-free and have a legal distribution set... if we merge
> these, then they will either leave off contrib also, or they will be
> forced to manually review the license of each individual package (a
> daunting task).  I therefore am very much against this, because I fear
> it will lead to less-complete CDs.

I have to disagree here. I'm a "CD vendor" so I know what I'm talking
about: I've decided to ship contrib and non-free (where possible) so I
wrote some tools to simplify the license checking task. This way, it's
actually very easy to check the non-free licenses. Added contrib to the
non-free packages would not make much difference.

And if Bruce has decided to drop contrib from the Debian Official CDs (I
totally agree with this decision) then this is really a part where we can
make life a lot easier for the maintainers. 

> >   1. A lot of people here still don't understand that `non-free' does
> >      _not_ mean `non-dfsg-compliant'.
> 
> Then let's clarify it.

I tried several times.

> >   2. Merging "non-free" and "contrib" would make life a lot easier for
> >      the maintainers. (They could easily check if the package complies to
> >      the DFSG and if it depends on packages out of `main'. Everything
> >      that fails this can go into the new "non-free".)
> 
> I have no problem reviewing policy when I make a new package.

Just have a look at the current discussions on debian-devel: Where can
`qt' go? Where should I put ... etc. (Ok, not every message, but there are
too many of them.)


Thanks,

Chris

--                 Christian Schwarz
                    schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Don't know Perl?     schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
      
Visit                  PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.perl.com     http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/


--
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 .