Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I am not much in favor of such things since there are a certain number of > non-free software that are open source and that have only litlle problems > in their license.
A great deal of stuff is in non-free because of a "little licence problem". In fact, that's the only reason anything is in non-free. You sound confused about what is DFSG-free. If something is DFSG-free (aka open source), it is not in non-free. > When I started maintaining sympa (a mailing list manager), it was in > non-free because of a little license problem. I was happy to be able to > say to people that Debian supported their software and that it would be > great if they could change the license to be DFSG-free. > > And that's what happened ... sympa has moved to main. So I don't see the > need of rejecting non-free software out of Debian. All those software are > potential DFSG-free software. I don't understand why sympa's authors wouldhave been any less likely to change the license if sympa had been initially uploaded to non-free.debian.org. > I think that if we want to change anything we should split non-free in > open-source and non-open-source or something like this ... Again, you misunderstand. The Open Source Definition is currently identiacal to the DFSG. Nothing that complies with the DFSG is in non-free. If we split non-free to open-source and non-open-source, we would merely be renaming non-free to non-open-source. > Concerning your proposition, do you know that non-free & contrib will be > lost on most of the mirrors ? That would not be good. I doubt it. I'll bet most mirrors with active admins would begin mirroring both. -- see shy jo
