On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > 1. Split up non-free? > > --------------------- > > I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than > splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility and other reasons. > This is why I prefer non-free/firmware over non-free-firmware for > naming these. > > > But: what's a good level of split? > > One per use-case probably? I can think of at least these possibilities > based on a couple of my old blog posts: > > non-free/docs > non-free/firmware > non-free/drivers > non-free/web > non-free/comm > non-free/formats > non-free/apps
I don't care much for making this more complicated, but splitting non-free may find many (even reasonable) metrics to do so. Think of some package with a non-commercial clause in its otherwise free license. Many of our users are non-commercial and could use non-free/non-commercial. Or think of those non-military/non-evil licenses which (almost) any private citizen and even many companies could use. I like the idea in principal, I just also think that dividing non-free must be a very thought-through process - with our users as first priority. Hauke
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
