On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
archive areas.
I liked Russ's suggestion a lot, and also agreed with your comments (I
had similar thoughts when reading it initially).
I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
"""
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not
conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages are not
formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes and security updates
depend entirely on their upstream developers. We provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate archive
areas. We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.
"""
An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some
practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not
like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of
official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the
case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to
these packages.
Also, I think a change like this is fine for this GR, but if it
complicates things, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some
finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon.
-Jonathan
