[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to licence
changes.
Can you give a reference for that, or are you making up Craig's views? He seems to get quite upset about that. As far as I can tell, he only ack'd that they were fixed "in part" due to being moved to non-free. I doubt that the mere presence in non-free does much "in and of itself" and the dialogue with the upstream and others is more important.
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.
Only things which can work without non-free should do this, IMO. I think that's the current situation, based on what people have written to me this week.
c.) Document that fact in the relevant package descriptions. Don't "recommend" non-DFSG in apt/deselect - which removes one of rms's problems -
Are you sure? I think that he considers our "support" for it more of a problem than the control fields.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
