On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP DECRYPTED MESSAGE-----
> [I'm moving this to debian-policy]
>
> On 1 Oct 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > [About zip and unzip moved to non-free]
> > >
> > > They are still in bo (main).
> > > I'm going to reopen this bug.
> >
> > There were a _lot_ of package movements besides this one in hamm.
> > Must I duplicate them all in bo?
>
> I those movements are like the zip/unzip one, I think so. Otherwise we can
> not claim that Debian 1.3.1 r"whatever" is fully DFSG-compliant.
>
> > Perhaps it's reasonable to keep the old definitions of non-free/contrib
> > for bo (the READMEs there still refer to the old definitions), and to
> > use the new definitions only for hamm?
>
> This would be, of course, the easiest solution. But: would we doing the
> right thing? Debian 1.3.1 is still being sold on CDs.
IMHO, the new non-free/contrib decision do not apply to old releases (bo
in this case) automatically. Currently, bo still uses the old definitions.
However, I think zip/unzip are actually non-free, even to the old
definition. I just checked the licenses yesterday for my new CD-ROMs and
discovered that I can not include either program on my CD-ROMs!
So I would propose to move zip/unzip into non-free of the current "stable"
release.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian is looking [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
