Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote: > > > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only, > > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free? > > In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a "warning" about usage > > restrictions but no definite statement. > > It does not disqualify the package for non-free, but I would ask that you > consider well how having this package in Debian will help Free Software > before uploading it to non-free. Are there free alternatives that > provide some of the features, which could be groomed to do what you need? > Is the software already in wide use, or will including it in non-free > increase its visibility -- leading more people to use non-free software?
Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the vendor changes file names, download locations, the internal structure of their package, etc.), I am examining if it is possible to replace the installer package with a package that contains the actual software. So I'm not planning to make more non-free software available to Debian users, but simply to replace an existing package by something that is presumably easier to maintain and install. Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can have. And also, not having access to the source really sucks badly (even if for non-hackers like me)! You suggested considering alternatives. So far I haven't heard of any free-as-in-freedom virus scanner, let alone a production-quality one. Did I miss something? If yes, please let me know! Thanks, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
