Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ? "): ... > This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2: > > Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they: > a. allow distribution of no source code > b. allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source code > needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other sources > in the Debian distribution). > c. depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used > d. allow use only for a trial period > e. lack vital functionality > f. are installer packages > g. fail to meet some other policy requirement > > Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they: > h. disallow distribution for profit > i. disallow distribution on certain media > j. disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained > k. have "any other onerous conditions". > > > My reactions: > > Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b).
Yes, if you think about them like that. I haven't expressed it quite that way. > It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition > (k) differs from condition (g). Without such a distinction, non-free > and contrib overlap. (k) is there as a catch-all, in case someone comes up with another example of a bad thing in a copyright. non-free and contrib do overlap - they are intended to. The way I have phrased it makes it clear that if a package meets the bad criteria for needing to be in non-free, and those for contrib, it must go in non-free. > The word "onerous" in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with > the Debian objective to be "a base upon which value-added > GNU/Linux distributions can be built." I don't understand this at all. Ian.