"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <j...@debian.org> writes: > I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
> """ > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards > We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not > conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages are not > formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes and security updates depend (Noting mostly for my future self: I'd use a semicolon here instead of a comma.) > entirely on their upstream developers. We provide the enabling > infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug > tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate archive > areas. We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages > to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether they > can distribute it on their media or products. > """ > An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some > practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not > like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of > official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the > case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to > these packages. Yup, agreed. I like those changes. > Also, I think a change like this is fine for this GR, but if it > complicates things, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some > finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon. The part of me that likes to do code refactorings and maintenance releases kind of wants to do a wording cleanup GR yearly or so, just to deal with ambiguous language and obsolete things like "CDs," but the rest of the project may find that annoying. :) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
