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: next approach: new non-free/contrib policy



On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

> 
> Hi folks!
> 
> I think (at least I hope :-) we have a consensus about this policy now:
> 
> 
> 1. main
> =======
> 
> Every package in main has to apply to the DFSG and may not declare
> a Depends or Recommends relation to a package outside of main.
> 
> [Changes: - No exceptions are allowed for "Recommends" relations.]

This wording means that I only need to remove the declaration to get the
package into the main distribution. It should be more clear that the
package can not depend on packages outside of main even if those
dependencies are undeclaired.

> 
> 
> 2. non-us
> =========
> 
> Packages which are export-restricted in the US have to go to into the 
> `non-us' distribution. 
> 
> The non-us distribution is considered as part of "Debian GNU/Linux" and
> will thus be split into
> 
>      non-us/main
>      non-us/non-free
> 
This is all quite redundant. None-us == non-free since those packages in
the non-us catagory are there because of "distribution restrictions". This
is the definition of non-free.

> to simplify task for CD-ROM vendors. However, packages in "main" (that is,
> "main" on master.debian.org, not `non-us/main') will still not be allowed
> to depend on `non-us/main' packages. If this case happens, the packages
> will have to be moved either to `contrib' or `non-us/main'. 
> 
Any CD vendor who ships either into or out of the US can't include any of
this stuff. It's all non-free by fiat of US law.

> (Note, that there will not be a "non-us/contrib" directory since non-us
> is too small for that.)
> 
> 
> 3. contrib
> ==========
> 
> Every package in contrib has to apply to the DFSG.
> 
Then it should qualify for the main distribution.

My understanding of contrib, (and I have seen no arguments that change my
thinking) is that packages in contrib are there because they have no
distribution restrictions, but fail to qualify for other reasons. Most
predominant of these are:

	Dependence on non-free or contrib packages.

	Unavailability of source code.

	Dependence on packages that can't be provided on Debian sites.

	Any other particular of the DFSG that is not met by the package.

> This implies, availability of source code, for example.
> 
> For example, the following packages will go into contrib:
> 
>     - "free" wrapper packages (netscape-installer, staroffice, etc.)
>     - packages which are "free" but depend on other packages outside of
>       `main'
>     - packages which fail other policy requirements (but are free)
>     - packages which we don't want to have in main (but are free)
> 
> 
> 4. non-free
> ===========
> 
> Every package in non-free must be freely distributable via our ftp server
> and its mirrors in form of a `.deb' binary package.
> 
All packages without explicit copyright statements, residing in non-free
at the moment, will get booted out completely.

Several others will be open for interpretation.

As the prime definition of non-free is "has distribution restrictions" the
above definition is contradictory.

>        
> 
> In addition to these changes, I plan the following policy
> "clarification":
> 
>    - /usr/doc/<pkg>/copyright has to contain the full copyright notice and
>      the full license. If the license is GPL, LGPL, Aritistic, or BSD, the
>      license _may not_ be included in the copyright file, but there has to
>      be a reference to the license file in /usr/doc/copyright/
> 
I can only assume that this is in another section of the Policy Manual,
not related to non-us/non-free/contrib.

The issue of demanding that every package (including non-free ones)
deliver a /usr/doc/<pkg>/copyright file, will make several no-free
packages non-existant, because they can not provide such a file.

Later,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
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 .