Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
On Fri, Nov 14, 1997 at 09:19:15AM +0200, Arto Astala wrote:
> I think something should be done. I also think that a better
> way would be to have a short note at toplevel, where there is
> a short description of directory hierarchy and a description of
> names and a reference to DFSG.
This is a good idea - we need to make things more user friendly for people
"browsing" the ftp sites - at the moment some parts are a bit of a mess -
/project in particular seems a bit strange.
> > > Debian has a definition of free, it's in the Debian Free Software
> > > Guidelines. Software which is not free by that definition goes into
> > > the non-free section on our ftp site. It's in non-free on *Debian's*
> > > ftp site, because it isn't considered free by Debian. What's the
> > > problem here?
>
> Only documentation, I think.
> > > James - DFSG. Why are there developers who a) haven't read it? and b)
> > > appear to be opposed or completely apathetic to the
> > > fundamental idea behind it (free software)? *sigh*
>
> It's not a question of developers, they (mostly) know their ropes,
> but other users and prospective users.
If I came across a directory called "non-free" I would assume that the
programs in it were shareware - particularly if I came from the Windows
world were every two line "hello world" program seems to be be "shareware"
(*share* ware should be free!) I don't want to put people off these programs
unnecessarily - if they want to use non-DFSG programs then fine, let them
make up their own mind on free software.
Someone has said that non-dfsg would confuse people - maybe it would, but
if there was a highly visible document at the top-level that explained what
was in non-dfsg then I think this is good as they then learn about the dfsg.
Why are there developers who appear to be opposed to the fundamental idea
behind *non*-free software and commercial software.
Getting back to original question - how about including the text below that
Arto wrote in a _noticable_ place in the top-level in the Debian tree?
> To start things rolling I sketch here what I ment with short note:
> ==========
> This is Debian 1.3.x distribution that is organized as follows:
> dists
> !-- stable
> ! !-- main
> ! !-- contrib
> ! !-- non-free
> !
> !-- unstable
> !-- main
> !-- contrib
> !-- non-free
>
> - stable is software where Debian has some confidency that all the
> parts work together
> - unstable is development snapshot of software believed to work,
> it may be broken at times
>
> Debian also has 'experimental' hierarchy for for software not yet
> ready for prime time.
>
> Some cryptography related software is only carried by non-us sites
> see list at xxx. This is often referred as non-us distribution.
>
> If you see 'bo' or 'hamm' they are code names and refer to stable
> and unstable.
>
> Sources are under each of {main,contrib,non-free}, but probably
> on a separate CD.
>
> - main distribution: this contains all software Debian considers
> (intellectually) free, definition for this is in DFSG
>
> - contrib distribution: this contains software Debian considers free,
> but that depends on something not on main distribution
>
> - non-free distribution: this contains all software that is not
> free by Debian definition, it may e.g. only allow non-commercial use
>
> All the distributions have similar internal structure, like this:
> Packages
> sources
> binary
> binary-all
> binary-i386
> etc.
> where the platform specific binary directory has subdirectories
> by application type.
>
> Installation is done with the 'dselect' program which you point
> to top of the tree (i.e. dists).
email: adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com | Debian Linux - www.debian.org
http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable
PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: