Re: next approach: new non-free/contrib policy

[Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>]

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> 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.

Note, that this text was just written to summarize this discussion--I'll
change the wording completely if I include this in the policy manual. (As
always, the changed policy will be presented to public _before_ its
released.)

> > 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.

Please red it more carefully. It says `export-restriced'. The wording is
very clear, IMHO.

> > 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.

Huh? I _am_ a CD vendor and I can ship non-us/main ("free") without
problems, even if the customer is in the US.

> > (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.

No. main = DFSG+consistency rule (see above).

> 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.

Please don't start this discussion again if you don't have good arguments
for it. This has been discussed at length already and if there no major
objections (there have not been any presented to me for the last week) the
new policy will be that ``every package in contrib will fully apply to the
DFSG''. This is necessary that `non-free' really means
`not-dfsg-compliant'.

(Please check out the last mails and don't start the discussion again.)

> > 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.

I don't see your arguments. Do you just want to be against this proposal
or do you have any real arguments?

Current policy is _very_ clear that packages without a copyright/license
statement or with "unclear" wordings ``may not be included in the archive
at all'', not even in non-free. And this will _not_ be changed. 

> > 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.

Yes, I said `in addition ... the following policy...'. This has also been
discussed in the last emails here: we want to extract the "copyright" file
automatically on master for several purposes. This makes it necessary,
that the "copyright" file explicitely contains the _full_ copyright and
license statement. This is already police, but some people did not know
this and thus I'll try to "clarify" it.

> 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.

If a package cannot provide that file, it can't be included in the
archive. I don't know why this isn't clear to you already. This has been
included in the policy manual since the manual exists (at least, since I
joined the project over a year ago).


Thanks,

Chris

--                  Christian Schwarz
                     schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian is looking     schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts     PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at    http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/


--
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 .