On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be > thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any > other package in main. This is a quality that many packages in > non-free do not share with them.
There's lots of software in non-free that is freely distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as limitations on commercial use. Non- free things should go in non-free, even if there's a lack of free equivalents. > As I don't have non-free in my > apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs to > the 'non-free' section would practically mean the same thing as > moving them to the trash dump. I guess this step would be far > too radical. Requiring you to add a line or two to sources.list isn't "trashing" anything. If this is a "radical" move, I'd say the earlier one of moving non-free software to non-free was an order of magnitude more "radical". > So, now I'm repeating an idea that I alredy mentioned here, > after selfhtml had been kicked: > > * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and > non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification, > availability of the source code etc., but at least freely > distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price. Distributors can already do this. I don't think Debian should be expending time categorizing non-free into "non-free and really non-free"; let people who would actually use the distinction (distributors) spend the time. (It'd be a fair bit of time, requiring further analysis of clearly non-free licenses.) -- Glenn Maynard
