On Fri, Sep 11, 1998 at 03:59:40PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > It seems there are a lot of problems with the non-free section, for instance > CDROM vendors who do not bother to check every licence individually and who > exclude the whole non-free tree. Basically, it comes from the fact that > non-free gathers packages which have very different reasons to be non-free. > > One of the authors of a package I intent to manage said (the package can be > distributed and used without fee but cannot be resold so I'll have to upload > in non-free): > > >I suggest you change the "non-free" to be two sections, one being > >"free-but-cannot-be-resold". Otherwise you will have to put it in non-free. > >If it was in "free-but-cannot-be-resold" then people would know that it > >was as cost-free to them as in "free". > > It seems that, for CDROM resellers or mirror sites, the most intelligent > split of free would be instead between "non-free-but-can-be-put-on-CDROM" and > "non-free-other"? > > I assume this discussion was already held, so if someone can explain.
Yes it has been had. Personally I would love to see a split in non-free like this. I think it would be a Good thing but... There are allot of non-free packages. Th eproblem is the time involved in reading each licence and deciding. Also...how do we make the determination? It is really a big mess...licences are overly complicated... even the GPL is a PITA if you have never read it before and don' "know it" -Steve -- /* -- Stephen Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>------------ */ E-mail "Bumper Stickers": "A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!" "honk if you Love Linux"
