On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > As an example of what falls in the category covered by section 5, > which is not commercial: if we have some software that has a "you can > have the source, and you can give away the source or binaries for free, > but you can't distribute modified source without special permission" > license -- especially if they've given Debian special permission -- > that would go in non-free. > > Also, for this context, section 1 basically says that we won't make > anything in our distribution depend on stuff in non-free. [Which means > that stuff in contrib, which depends on stuff in non-free, should never > be a part of our official distribution -- it shouldn't be on our official > cdroms.]
What it says is "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software". My contention is that the mirror network constitutes a distribution system and therefore the materials it moves constitute the "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". The first article seems to represent an axiomatic statement of our core mission and the fifth mainly a statement of "support" to the commercial community. In truth, the specifics that the fifth article go into regarding directories and methods of access really don't make sense in a "Social Contract". The rest of the statements logically belong in such a statement of purpose, the fifth should be boiled down to a philosophical direction. > Finally, if FTP really becomes obsolete, that doesn't contradict > section 5. However, FTP is no more obsolete than SMTP. [It doesn't > represent the majority of traffic on the internet, but people still use > it for quite a lot.] I was not saying that FTP would become obsolete, I was saying that CDs will become obsolete. -- ___________________________________________________________________ Ean Schuessler An odorless programmer work-a-like Brainfood, Inc. Silent and motionless *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
