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: Policy change for "main", "contrib", and "non-free"


On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:

[...]
>    Every package in "main" must have a license complying with the DFSG.
>    (The DFSG is Debian GNU/Linux's definition of "free" software.)
[...]
>    Every package in "contrib" must have a license complying with the DFSG.
[...]
>    "Non-free" contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG
>    or which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make
>    their distribution problematic. 

I think that the intent here is to relegate all packages which
violate only section 2 of the DFSG in such a way that it's
not a license-related issue to "non-free", but I'm not sure.
The "main" and "contrib" requirements are very specific in saying
the license must comply with the DFSG, but don't say that the
package as a whole must comply.  The "non-free" requirements,
however, say that "non-free" contains packages which don't comply,
not packages with licenses which don't comply.

What about, for example, packages which do not include all
the source code needed to build the package, but which allow
redistribution of the source code which is included?  As I
interpret the requirements above, they would not be excluded from
either "main" or  "contrib" (the license complies with DFSG OK),
but would nonetheless be placed in "non-free" (the package as a
whole doesn't comply with DFSG, and "non-free" is for packages
which don't comply).

If I interpret the intent correctly, it seems to me that it would
be clearer to omit specific mention of the license in the requirements
for "main" and "contrib", and say instead that the package must be
DFSG compliant.




--
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 .