Re: There are _TWO_ discussions here

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > On 29 Jul 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> > 
> > > Just in case it's not emminently clear to all, there are two things
> > > being discussed here.
> > > 
> > > First, Christian and I (and possibly others), want to make contrib
> > > packages DFSG compliant.  This is an important issue, and practically
> > > nobody has responded to it.
> > 
> > It was always my understanding that the packages in contrib were not Free
> > Software. Although the new DFSG doesn't explicity declare this to be the
> > case, I seems to be implied.
> 
> The DFSG itself does not say anything about our "distributions"--it's the
> policy. You are right, until now contrib was ``non-free'' too, but this is
> what seems to confuse some people.
> 
> > The distinction that I would hate to see blurred is the distinction
> > between not-free for distribution restrictions and not-free for other
> > considerations.
> 
> The problem is that it's hard to specify any general rules for a
> ``non-free-but-freely-distributable'' (i.e. contrib) package. Of course,
> we could write some guidelines for this as with the DFSG, but this is
> probably against our goals--we want to encourage the authors to produce
> "free" software, not "contrib" software.

But the guidelines say that we "support" the distribution of non-free
packages as well, for the needs of our user base. We also don't want to
"punish" authors or software that is not entirely free.

> 
> > This distinction is very helpful in promoting the distribution of
> > contrib,
> 
> moving 6 packages from contrib and non-free wouldn't make much difference 
> 
I keep hearing about these 6 packages. Which ones are we talking about? It
sounds like these packages should never have been in contrib at all. If we
are talking about packages that provide no source, these packages probably
have no distribution restrictions and could go on my CD in any case.

> > while providing protection from the legal implications of the
> > licenses of packages currently found in "non-free". 
> 
> I wouldn't call it `protection' if we encourage CD manufacturers to
> include contrib and have 11 packages in contrib now which have severe
> license `problems'. (That's 42 total packages, so 26%.) The problem is
> that `the average maintainer' does not know enough about licenses (or does
> not want to know enough :) to distinguish contrib from non-free.

Then we clearly need some legal help vetting software licenses. I don't
see a solution from "This is really confusing, lets lump all the confusing
stuff together".

> 
> And all CD manufacturers (as you and me) rely on their decision...
> 
> > While I appreciate that merging the two would make archive maintainance
> > simpler, I don't think it will get more software on a CD.
> 
> We don't propose to "merge" contrib and non-free. We propose to make all
> contrib packages apply to the DFSG too. This will move only 6 packages
> from contrib to non-free--that's not much. But it will make life a lot
> easier for maintainers and a lot safer for CD manufacturers.
> 
It is still my position that DFSG compliant should equal "goes into main".
(This requires that you accept that the DFSG at least implies that
packages that depend on no-free software are themselves non-free)

> And according to Bruce' last message, this change will also allow
> "contrib" to go on the official CD image--which is currently not included
> because of the `license troubles'.
> 
I thought it was not included because it was not free software.

> > I would rather see the DFSG expanded to speak to the issues of package 
> > dependence on non-free software and what the implications are for that 
> > dependence on the "freedoms" that can be associated with the dependent 
> > code.
> 
> Some people said that the way they interpret the DFSG, these dependency
> rules are already implied :-) 
> 
And others are arguing that contrib would equal free if it weren't for
these dependency issues, that contrib is mostly DFSG compliant and can be
made so by removing several packages. It is this contention that I have a
problem with.

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 .