On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Mitch Blevins wrote: > R Garth Wood wrote: > > The reason the distinction is not clear now is that ppl want > > that feature(to be easy to install debs of any license). > > If you try to change that they will just circumvent > > whatever measure is in place and make it just as easy, > > perhaps making the distinction less clear. > > > > I you want to make the distinction I think there is probably a better > > way. Maybe nf-<pkg_name>*.deb or something. > > I would disagree. > > There are three (and probably more) levels of distinction that we can > use with regard to free software. These range from most general to > most specific like so: > > [General] <--------------------------------------------> [Specific] > ServerName <---------------> Directory <-----------------> FileName
The problem posed is that when a person installs software, they know it's not or is debian main, right? # apt-get install foo doesn't quite do that. > We currently use the directory to distinguish our non-free from our > Free software. Wichert is proposing that we move this distinction to > the more general choice (of server or domain name). This has the > advantage that we can make sweeping statements like: > "All software on www.debian.org is Free software" > and > "All software on www.debian.org is part of the Debian distribution" > > Right now, the best we can do is say: > "All software located under the 'main' directory on www.debian.org > is free software and part of the distribution" > > Your suggestion to use the filename as an indicator of freeness > moves our distinction to a more specific case, and the statement > then becomes: > "All software not beginning with the letters 'nf' on www.debian.org > is free software and part of the Debian distribution" > > I fail to see how a filename distinction would be less confusing, I see. Well is it worth moving all that stuff around to make that statement? Also would non-free become dilapidated like nonus was? This is a big concern of mine as well. It's just a suggestion; not something I put a lot of thought into. But I think what wichert wants is that when someone installs a pkg they know it is non-free. With the dn solution this if may not be the case. I should point out that I don't favour the nf- thing either, I think it's ugly. But if it keeps the pkgs on the same server it's better the segregating them. > and I support the use of an alternate domain or server name to > make this distinction provided that it can be accomplished without > too much pain on our mirrors. > > Your comment that people will circumvent this distinction implies > that Debian is somehow trying to prevent people from using the > non-free section of the archive. This is not the case. I'm assuming that the nonfree.debian.org will not be in sources.list by default else they wouldn't know it was non-free, right? I can forsee a lot of newbies not being able to download non-free stuff if they had to edit sources.list I don't think we're trying but that will be the effect. > "Circumvention" of these distinction through a concious choice of It will be unconcious, though. That is my point. > the user made possible by tools like apt is desirable and will > be accomplished no matter how this issue is decided. I think it's fine the way it is. I fact I'd like to see the US government find some way to allow crypographic software to be freely distributed so that we could unite the archives. PS I don't want to start a long thread. Everyone: don't reply unless you really want to. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | R Garth Wood | ...cooler than you. | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
