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

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

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> >> So if someone signs the gated distribution license, states that he is
> >> fully responsible for all the consequences etc in the copyright file, that
> >> the Debian Project does not consider that package a part of its
> >> distribution etc etc and uses our ftp server to do so then its ok?
> >
> >No. Every piece of software that is put on ftp.debian.org (or related
> >sites) is considered as "distributed by the Debian Project/SPI". There is
> >no way to change this by adding a statement to the copyright file or
> >anywhere else. 
> 
> We have said again and again that non-free is not part of Debian.
> non-free does not have to conform to our copyright requirements. It must
> just be made available with consent from the authors. I do not think that
> we would have any problems getting such a permission from the gated
> consortium once someone signs it and takes responsibility.

It has also been said ``again and again'' that we (that is _Debian_) must
at least be allowed to distribute the packages in non-free. (We can't
include MS WinWord in non-free, for example.)

And a single Debian maintainer signing the gated contract would not allow
"Debian" to distribute this piece of software.

It might be possible for us to distribute gated if _we_ (that is Debian)
sign their license--but we will not do this as this is clearly against our
goals. 

> >Debian will _not_ sign any contracts just to be allowed to distribute a
> >package (not even for "non-free"). This would be clearly against our
> >goals.
> 
> I said nothing about Debian signing anything. It is certainly not
> against our goals to confirm that the changes we make are returned
> to the gated consortium and to keep it free. This would just confirm our
> goals.
> 
> But we are talking here about someone else signing and taking
> responsibility for gated staying free software because the
> inflexibilitys of the Debian project leaders does not allow
> that.

This has nothing to do with `inflexibility.' We would not look very good
to others if we `fight' for free software on the one side but sign
contracts to be allowed to ship non-free software on the other hand. We
simply leave this part to some else--for example the `Vitamin D'
project--if they like to do that (which you should ask Shaya).

And if `someone else [...] signs and takes responsibility' for gated, we
(again: Debian) is _not_ allowed to distribute this piece of software.

> >However, the "Vitamin D" project could sign the license and distribute the
> >package on _their_ ftp servers (if Vitamin D-people agree--I don't know).
> 
> If you see vitamin-d as taking over non-free and contrib and refuse to
> have non-free or contrib as we used to then you are changing the goals to
> which the debian project has committed itself in the social contract. We
> need a new vote on the social contract for such a radical change as you
> are proposing.

Who did say that `Vitamin D' takes over non-free and contrib? I think
Bruce (as well as others) said very clearly that Vitamin D will not take
over non-free or contrib in the near future. There goal (AFAIK) is to
create a CD-ROM which contains non-free and contrib (to the extent where
the licenses of these packages allow this) as well as other `non free'
software.


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 .