Re: contrib/non-free policy

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > Look; contrib and non-free are really easy to understand if you are
> > willing. Package that have distribution restrictions go into non-free,
> > plain and simple. If the copyright/license restricts how the software can
> > be distributed, then it goes into non-free. The last time I checked, Pine
> > was there because its copyright prohibits distribution with proprietary
> > software. This means that I can put it on my CDs because I don't include
> > any proprietary software on my CDs. It still should/must go into the
> > non-free section for this restriction. Each distributor must decide if the
> > license fits their particular case. This is the message of non-free.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > Packages go into contrib, if they depend on non-free packages, or other
> > contrib packages, or if they fail to provide other important needs, like
> > "no source", etc... So, it doesn't belong in the free section of the
> > distribution, but it is for reasons other than distribution restrictions.
> > As a result, I, as a CD manufacturer, don't have to worry when I include
> > contrib (for those users who need it) that I might be violating some
> > distribution restriction, as I must with non-free. 
> 
> This was correct until now. However, the release of the DFSG has forced us
> to change this policy: we are telling people now what we consider as
> `free' software, that is, every piece of software who's license applies to
> the DFSG. 

And current packages in contrib do not fit the DFSG. That is why they are
in contrib. They aren't in non-free because they have no distribution
restricitons.

> 
> According to the DFSG's definition of `free', the availability of the
> source code is also necessary. Thus, packages without source are
> automatically considered `non-free'.
> 
and go in contrib.

> That's why I proposed to merge `contrib' and `non-free' at first hand, but
> then, a few guys here objected since this will put DFSG compliant packages
> who fail other rules into `non-free'.
> 
I'm one of those who oppose the merger of contrib and non-free. The
seperation is both useful and meaningful even if the names aren't.

> So the new policy I suggested is this: Every contrib package must apply to
> the DFSG. Otherwise it goes to non-free. (Of course, this is much more
> complicated in real life, for example, there is also the `non-us'
> section.)

Any package that fully conforms to the DFSG belongs in the main
distribution. That is the whole point of having those Guidelines! Contrib
should still be for those packages that don't satisfy the constraints but
have no distribution restrictions.

Look, I hate these names as much as the next person. They should be named
non-free (for contrib) and non-distributable (for non-free), because the
definitions suggest that this is what they really are. I can live with the
names if we don't start screwing around with the definitions.

> Hope this clarifies things a bit,

Not much ;-)

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 .