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:

> Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu> writes:
> 
> > 1) export restricted (regardless of DFSG-complience, etc) - non-us/
> > 2) DFSG-compliant, consistent - main/
> > 3) DFSG-compliant, depend on non-DFSG-compliant   
> > 4) non-DFSG-compliant, freely distributable
> > 5) non-DFSG-compliant, not freely distributable
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be more logical instead of voting on where to draw
> > contrib/non-free line (between 3 and 4 OR 4 and 5) just create one more
> > directory?
> 
> Good question.
> 
> First, the distinction between 4 and 5 is very fuzzy.  Freely
> distributable by whom?  To whom?  On what media?  As we saw when
> writing the DFSG, it is very difficult to come up with a precise
> definition of what free is.
> 
> Whether we continue with the status quo, placing the contrib/non-free
> division between #4 and #5, or whether we invent an additional
> category for #4, we will have to agree on a definition of "freely
> distributable".
> 
> Second, any definition we arrive at will by necessity be arbitrary,
> and there will be further lobbying for more levels of freedom -
> sorta-free, kinda-free, mostly-free.  We should promote software
> freedom as being akin to pregnancy - all or nothing.
> 
> Finally, one of our goals is to promote free software.  Having
> secondary degrees of freedom weakens our stance.

Absolutely agreed.

Now, let's do some statistics: (Note, the numbers are based on the list I
posted yesterday. I didn't spend much time on individual
copyrights/licenses, so these numbers might vary slightly. Also note,
that `related packages' have been counted only once.)

     total numer of packages in contrib:       42
                         DFSG compliant:       25
                     not DFSG compliant:       15
                        unknown license:        2

If we apply _current_ policy to this, we would get:

    packages to be removed (no license):        2
     packages to be moved to "non-free":        9

With the result:

     total numer of packages in contrib:       31
                         DFSG compliant:       25
                     not DFSG compliant:        6

If we'd change policy so that "contrib" packages would have to apply to
DFSG too, we'd only have to move 6 packages to non-free, which are
currently in contrib, that is 19%. This is acceptable to me, since the new
policy will make life a lot easier for everyone.


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 .