On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > > then explain why software that is almost-free (e.g. software that is free > > for > > use or modification but is prohibited from commercial sale) should not be > > distributed at all by debian. explain why free-but-patent-restricted > > software > > should not be distributed at all by debian. explain why software that is > > free > > for personal or educational use should not be distributed at all by debian. > > explain why software that is free for all but use by government agencies or > > spammers or whoever should not be distributed at all by debian. > > The simple answer is: the reason that we should not distribute them is > the same as the reason that they are not DFSG-free. You can, I'm sure, > search voluminous archives for illuminating discussions upon all those > points with relation to the DFSG. The fact that some software has > source and others don't; or that some can be used by only certain > people; is an irrelevant distinction to me. > You two have just turned on a lightbulb for me :) Without being too controversial -
1.) The Debian Free Software Guidelines are just that - guidelines. The Project chooses to follow them. As Craig said, the act of putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence changes. The KDE stand on principle produced huge flamewars at the time and a great deal of incomprehension - but ultimately to beneficial effect. BUT 2.) We don't (and can't) support non-free software as DFSG - if we could it would already be in main :) (This also hearks back to the start of the Open Source Definition - Bruce Perens has a huge amount to answer for, one way and another - and the resultant flamewars and wreckage. [The OSD was a slightly modified DFSG to suit a different audience and to attempt to de-emphasise some of the confusion over various shades of meaning of "free" software] ). Try this for size (meant as a suggestion for discussion/comment and not purely to promote flamewars). Prior to considering or passing any GR to remove the non-free section or Debian infrastructure supporting it, the Debian Project should a.) Rename non-free to "non-DFSG-free" or simply "non-DFSG". Debian has gained a lot of reputation and standing by setting up and sticking to the DFSG over the years: this relatively simple change would emphasise _why_ Debian considers this software as non-free without penalising those using it. b.) Potentially, merge contrib into main: the packages within contrib are, by their nature, DFSG free but may need non-DFSG software to build, for example. c.) Document that fact in the relevant package descriptions. Don't "recommend" non-DFSG in apt/deselect - which removes one of rms's problems - but continue to allow users to select non-DFSG and other potential sources when setting up their APT sources lists as a pragmatic step. [A UK Linux magazine which put out Woody on DVD recently went still further and added links to Woody backports as a matter of course.] HTH, Andy
