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]

summary of non-free/contrib policy

Hi!

Please let me summarize the current state of the discussion again: 

Everyone here seems to agree what we put in main, namely DFSG+consistency
rule compliant packages. This can be considered of the `upper end' of
packages, if we arrange them on a scale where non-DFSG packages are at the
lower end and `free' packages are at the upper end.

Furthermore, the `lower bound' seems to be clear too: everything that we
are allowed to distribute via our FTP servers.

So now, we have to find the `border' between `contrib' and `non-free'
packages. In the past, we put `distribution restricted' packages into
non-free and everything else (that is, everything which is not in `main'
but which _can_ be distributed without problems) into `contrib'.

Now we have two groups of people:

  Group 1 thinks that `non-free' means `not-dfsg-compliant'. This would
    reduce `contrib' to DFSG-compliant packages that depend on packages
    outside of main or which we simply don't want to have in `main'.

  Advantages:
      - policy will be easier to understand
      - the names `non-free' and `contrib' get new interpretations that 
        are closer to the terms `non-free' and `contrib'

  Disadvantages:
      - policy will have to be changed, which will confuse some people
     

  Group 2 thinks that `non-free' means `not-freely-redistributable' (this 
    is the old interpration).

  Advantages:
      - no need to change policy

  Disadvantages:
      - `non-free' does not mean `not-free' which confuses some people


How should we proceed? Should we do a vote? 

I would vote for Solution 1 since it will simplify policy (it's too
complicated already, as you see from this discussion).



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 .