On 07/06/2012 01:01 PM, Bryan Quigley wrote: > I understand that removing nonfree is not currently realistic (and making > DebianExtended might be the only short term option).
I'm not convinced that DebianExtended even makes sense, myself.
Non-free is already not part of debian's official distribution.
Do we have an official statement from the FSF that the existence of
non-free (and what about contrib?) are the core of their concerns with
debian?
> I'm wondering if
> there might be some low-hanging fruit in nonfree? Do we want to do
> outreach to projects in nonfree and see if they have the best license for
> their purposes? Doc and data seem like the most likely candidates.
I like this idea, but i'm not sure how to go about it. Can you explain
how you'd like to proceed? The different projects in non-free have
potentially very different reasons for not adopting a DFSG-free license.
Convincing the upstream of every package in non-free to change their
license seems implausible, so that means that some packages would likely
remain. How would that affect the FSF's concerns?
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
