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: new definition of non-free

On 24 Jul 1997, Guy Maor wrote:

> While I do agree that there's no point in keeping contrib and non-free
> separate on the archive if our official CD will not carry them, I am
> concerned with the strictness of your policy:
> 
> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
> >     - Packages in "main" have to apply to the DFSG _and_ may not declare 
> >       `Depends' or `Recommends' on packages outside of "main"
> 
> I think there are a fair number of packages which are free, but depend
> or recommend non-free or non-US packages (for example all the programs
> that work with pgp).

What about keeping contrib and non-free then, but change the policy for
contrib? For example:

   - Packages in "contrib" have to apply to the DFSG as well. This
     distribution is thought for packages that depend on 
     non-free/non-us/contrib packages or which are "wrapper packages" for
     other software products (either commercial or non-commercial).

Note, that this is a change in policy: All packages without source, for
example, would have to be moved from contrib to non-free then. However, it
will be clear then, that `non-free' means `not-dfsg-compliant'.

How many packages would be in such a "contrib" directory? I'm not sure if
it's worth the troubles if there are only few packages.

> Whether we do decide to merge contrib into non-free, I really think we
> need another directory in non-free - copyrights, which contains the
> copyright files out of each package.  I can very easily do this
> automatically.  Even better is someone (Vitamin D obviously) would
> periodically review all those copyrights and summarize the
> restrictions in one file.

Yes, that's a very good idea. I propose to change policy so that the
/usr/doc/*/copyright files actually contain the _license_. (Some packages
ship "LICENSE" files and have a short "copyright" file. This would break
such a script.)


Thanks,

Chris

--          _,,     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 .