Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: >> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? >> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html > > Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from > distributing isos compiled from the source.
So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that. > How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. > And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal > that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't > make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters > decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. I think the constitution says that "plain AGPL" is OK. > In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into > main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't > that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the > non-free repository. Being "only" in non-free is nothing to be ashamed > of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with > invariant sections. Do you want to put free software into nonfree? > Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as > obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) Do you mean freedom as in beer? I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of software. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff29h$h7m$1...@ger.gmane.org