On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote: > there are several licenses which have some small problems (choice of > venue, etc...) and that are declared non-free; Debian should make a > clearer difference between small and big problems.
Licenses which do not comply with the DFSG do not comply with the DFSG, and therefore cannot be included in main. There are clauses which only just barely cross the line, and there are clauses which can't see the line at all. When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply because we think it would be nice to include them. The small problems are generally solvable by working with the license author or the copyright holder to change the drafting of the licence to be DFSG free; we do this all the time. The big problems tend to be irreconcilable political or legal differences. If you think that the problem is a small one, and the work should be included, please help work with upstream authors and license writers to create licences which are obviously DFSG Free. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
