On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:13:37AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > > Hello, > > > > In the wake of the discussion about solving the murky non-free binary > > firmware > > blobs in our linux kernel issue, there was a proposition to split out the > > firmware blobs from the main drivers, and distribute them in a separate but > > canonical place from ftp.kernel.org. > > > > As thus i was wondering if, together with the volatile effort, it would not > > be > > time for us to split the non-free archive into two parts, namely : > > > > 1) non-free-but-freely-distributable > > > > Which would hold all the files which are freely distributable, but fail > > one > > of the freely modificable criterias of the DFSG. > > > > 2) rest of non-free > > > > Which would include all but the ones in the first part, and impose some > > furter restriction on distribution. > > This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria above others > in importance. If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less > discriminatory way would be to flag (internally or on a central web > site somewhere) each package in non-free according to which parts of > DFSG it fails.
Yep, that would be indeed a better solution, but you then need support downloading only said parts. As i said elsewhere, ideally, all non-free package should have a field listing non-free reason keyword (no-source, restricted-distribution, other, ...), and then we could match these keywords with apt-get or something. But as the main problem in the non-free archive is distribution, be it for CDs or for mirrors, i believe it would be easiest to have a different view for the non-free distributable packages. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
