Re: summary of non-free/contrib policy

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

> 
> 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

Then the call should be for a name change rather than a changing of the
rules.

I agree that contrib and non-free are not "self explanatory" names, but
the division into two groups has a foundation in technical issues that you
ignore when you talk about a merger, or redefinition of the two terms. I
agree that the current state of affairs is that contrib is non-free
(although freely distributable) while non-free is really non-free and
restricted-distribution, but whatever they are to be named the is a real
need for a distinction between what can be "safely" put on a CD for sale
and what must be looked at carefully to determin whether you are allowed
to distribute the product through your media.

I am opposed to anything that will blur this distinction, and, as best I
can tell from what has been written, your proposal would do just that.
>From my point of view, this will not get more software on a CD for folks
to use. It will in fact discourage much of what is now in contrib from
appearing on any CDs, not just the Official Debian one.

> 
> 
> 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).
> 
It would simplify the policy statement to have no rules at all for
software inclusion. Simplicity is never good, as a prime criterion, for
such a determination.

Luck,

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 .