On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote: > And btw: > Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps > generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source > software while keeping other non-free software, then the name > non-free-firmware seems to break the current naming, doesn't it? > main > contrib > non-free > > These all give the "license status" of their packages. > But non-free-firmware, would give license status and package type. > > > Oh and since this has been brought up by someone. > It seems better if packages wouldn't be in multiple suites. > That's also what I'd have intended with non-open, in other words, a > package that is in non-open is only there and not also in e.g. > non-open/firmware (and vice versa).
Maybe closed-source would be clearer than non-open. -- hendrik
