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: summary of non-free/contrib policy

On 28 Jul 1997, Guy Maor wrote:

> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
> 
> >   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'.
> > ...
> >   Group 2 thinks that `non-free' means `not-freely-redistributable' (this 
> >     is the old interpration).
> 
> Both solutions are quite reasonable interpretations.  Both would
> largely keep currently non-free and main packages where they are.  The
> only differences is that the first interpretation moves some contrib
> packages to non-free.
> 
> So that we might get a better handle on this alternative, could you,
> Christian, go through the packages in contrib and list the ones that
> would and would not be moved to non-free?

Ok. So the question is which packages currently in `contrib' apply to the
DFSG and which do not.

Note, that I did not spend much time on each package, so some decision may
be wrong. However, I'm really surprised how many packages are in the wrong
distribution!!!!!!!!!!!

The summary (see below) have shown me, that I, as a Debian CD
manufacturer, cannot rely on the maintainers decide which program is
freely distributable and which is not. (Some packages do not allow
commercial distribution and are in contrib!)

Thus, I (strongly) propose that we simplify policy regarding non-free and
contrib now. (I will not ship any contrib packages before checking the
licenses myself.) I think we need to implement Solution 1. This is much
easier to check for everybody and thus we should have less packages
(hopefully none :) in the wrong distribution.

Of course, I know that this new policy will produce a little more work for
CD manufacturers, but it didn't take very long to create the summary below
so this shouldn't be a problem. (And it will simplify things for the
maintainers!) 

> This discussion is, of course, closely related to the one on whether
> to include contrib on the official CD.  If we go with the first
> alternative, we could in good faith include contrib packages on the
> CD.

As I understood Bruce, the decision to drop contrib off the official CDs
has been made already. And if you check the list below--I guess he was
absolutely right. This will change if all packages in contrib are DFSG
compliant.


Cheers,

Chris

-----------------


package                                DFSG compliant  reason
====================================== =============== ===============

admin/logwrites_1.1-3.deb              yes             GPL
       (--> why is this package in contrib and not in main???)

admin/npasswd-boulder_1.2.2-2.deb      no?
       (--> very complicated license, I'd say such packages belong to
       non-free--unless we have a lawyer here)

devel/ddd-dmotif*_2.1.1-2.deb          yes             GPL
       (is in contrib since it requires Motif to compile it)

devel/java-cup_0.10b-2.deb             ???
       (--> no copyright or license in "copyright" file)

devel/kaffe_0.7.1-2.deb                yes?
       (is in contrib since it depends on JDK)

devel/libkde0-dev_0.10.01-1.deb        GPL
       (is in contrib since it depends in qt)

devel/libkde0.9.00-dev_0.9.00-1.deb    GPL
       (dto)

devel/mysql-manual_0.80-1.deb          no
       (oops, this should be in non-free! I'll upload it ASAP...)

devel/swig_1.1.b5.p2-1.deb             ???
       (--> no copyright or license in "copyright" file)

editors/nedit-?motif_4.0.3-1.deb       no
       (I'd say this belongs to `non-free'!)

games/abuse_2.00-1.deb                 yes            public domain
       (is in contrib since it depends on abuse-lib which is non-free)

games/koules_1.3-2.deb                 no
       (this one belongs to non-free!)

games/squake_1.07-1.0-3.deb            no
       (this one belongs to non-free!)

graphics/gimp-?motif_0.54.1-6.deb      yes            GPL
       (is in contrib since it requires motif to compile)

graphics/gimp-plugins_1.0-1.deb        yes            GPL/PD
       (depends on gimp)

graphics/xtrkcad_1.2.0-1.deb           yes?
       (very short license--not complete)

interpreters/swi-prolog_2.8.2-1.deb    no?
       (complicated license)

libs/libkde0.9.00_0.9.00-1.deb         yes            GPL

libs/libkde0_0.10.01-1.deb             yes            GPL

mail/pinepgp_2.1.deb                   yes            GPL
       (depends on pine)

math/xephem-smotif_3.0-1.deb           no
       (this belongs to non-free!)

math/xldlas_0.85-1.deb                 yes            GPL
       (is in contrib since it depends on xforms)

net/circus_0.43-1.deb                  no             no source?

net/filerunner_2.2.1-1.deb             no
       (license is way to short--has to go to non-free!)

net/ftpwatch_1.2.deb                   yes            GPL
       (depends on ncftp)

net/mrtg_2.2-1.deb                     yes            GPL
       (depends on libgd)

net/xirc_2.0-1.deb                     yes            GPL
       (depends on qt)

net/xisp_2.1-1.deb                     yes            GPL
       (depends on xforms)

otherosfs/picasm_1.5-2.deb             no
       (belongs to non-free!)

shells/pash_2.2-1.deb                  no             shareware

sound/festvox-{8,16}k_1-1.deb          yes
       (short license but seems to be ok, depends on festival)

sound/splay_0.5-2.deb                  yes            GPL
       (why is this in contrib?)

sound/xgmod_3.0.5-1.deb                no?
       (license not fully specified --> cannot go into the archive at
       all!)

text/acroread_3.0-1.deb                no             no source

text/lyx_0.10.7-3.deb                  yes            GPL
       (depends on xforms)

utils/compress-package_1.3-1.deb       yes            GPL
       1. why is this not in main?
       2. this package is orphaned
       3. why is it not called `compress' :-)

utils/ferret_1.2.1-1.deb               no
       nothing said about distribution --> may not go into the archive at
       all!

utils/xosview_1.3.2-6.deb              yes            GPL
       (why in contrib?)

utils/xtar-?motif_1.4-2.deb            yes
       (depends on motif for compilation)

x11/kdeapps_0.10.01-2.deb              yes            GPL
       (depends on libkde)

x11/metrox_3.1.2-1.deb                 yes            GPL'ed wrapper pkg

x11/xforms*                            no
       (nothing said about commercial distribution --> has to go into
       non-free)

--                 Christian Schwarz
Do you know         schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian GNU/Linux?    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.debian.org   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 .