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



bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee)  wrote on 01.08.97 in <199708020053.SAA04067@chunks.gag.com>:

> 	1) fully DFSG compliant, with no dependency problems
> 	2) fully DFSG compliant, with dependency problems
> 	3) non-DFSG compliant, with no distribution restrictions
> 	4) non-DFSG compliant, with distribution restrictions
>
> You think that only 1, 2, and 4 are important.  Dale thinks that only 1, 3,
> and 4 are important.  I see some value in distinguishing between 3 and 4,
> and now understand your motivation for wanting to have a separate section
> for 2.

Well, we have two really important objectives here. One is that software  
id DFSG compliant, the other is that we have a consistent main  
distribution. Both of these are rather central to the project.

Where does this leave us?

                  DFSG           other

main distrib      1              -

other             2              3,4

That's why people (me included, actually) think that separating 1/2/3+4 is  
rather more useful than separating 1/2+3/4.

Now, you could, of course, separate all four categories. However, I think  
there is a more useful strategy.

3+4 both have non-free aspects. Different people getting in contact with  
them will draw different lines as to what is useful to them and what  
isn't; what we can do is make it more easy for them to find which are  
which.

Using distribution-restriction to make two heaps isn't very useful: it  
seems to only work for a subset of the CD manufacturers. That's a really  
small part of the target audience!

A better way would be something that, IIRC, has already been suggested: do  
a license classification system, and classify all of 3+4 with that system.  
That would be useful for a lot more people.

Example classifications:

* Freeware / Shareware / Free for noncommercial use / ...

* Freely distributable / Distributable at cost / Distributable with free  
software / needs special distribution agreement / ...

Surely something like this would be more useful that keeping two  
directories!

So, my vote would go to the following structure:

version/main/...              1
        contrib/...           2
        non-free/...          3+4
                 licenses/... exact licenses, and classification

Maybe this is a case of "eat your cake and keep it", but it sure looks  
workable to me.

Note that this doesn't touch the non-us problem. I don't have any good  
solutions for that one; I wish the US would get rid of those silly laws  
(not only because of Debian, but because they are a significant temptation  
for lawmakers elsewhere to create similar silly laws).


MfG Kai


--
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 .