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: There are _TWO_ discussions here



In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.970730074859.1096A-100000@dwarf.polaris.net> you wrote:

: 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.

Yes.  I believe there is real, practical value in maintaining the separation of 

	main		DFSG compliant

	contrib		not DFSG compliant, *or* orphaned, or otherwise less
			supported... but still freely redistributable

	non-free	not freely redistributable

I haven't seen a proposal that offers any good reason for more than three
areas.  I disagree with the assertion that contrib and non-free are both 
second-class citizens and can be lumped together with impunity... 

Even after all the discussion, I still firmly believe that this "problem" has
come about because some of "us" find the above distinctions confusing, and 
think the right way to solve this is change things that work and are practical
rather than learning why they are the way they are.

I have *no doubt* that there are some mis-filed packages.  Why don't we just
treat these as what they are, packaging and distribution bugs, and fix them?

I am willing to concede that in the wake of the DFSG going public, that we have
changed the Debian "default definition" of the word "free", such that the 
directory name 'non-free' is even less optimal than it once was.  Is this
really worth all this chaos?  A rose by any other name...

I remain completely unconvinced that we should change the definitions
of the directory trees.

: 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.

I agree with Dale.  The whole point of 'contrib' was to have a place for 
things that are freely redistributable but didn't meet the DFSG... even though
we didn't have a DFSG in writing, the core group of original developers had 
already internalized the DFSG, and used its criteria to decide what could and 
should go in the main distribution... 

Bdale


--
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 .