On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:36:51PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Amend non-free definition (#46522)
> > * Stalled.
> > * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Marco d'Itri, Joseph Carter
> > and Joel Klecker.
> > * Change definition of non-free to "contains packages which are not
> > compliant with the DFSG". Currently, non-free includes packages
> > with patent problems or other legal issues.
> I don't recall any pressing issues with this, and I do recall a few people
> who thought the idea was a good one not represented here as seconding it.
>
> Anybody have issues with this or can we call it accepted?
If we move all this stuff into main, we'll be widely distributing stuff
that we know is covered by patent restrictions in areas where we're
well aware we're distributing it, and we'll be specifically telling
people that it's freely usable and distributable.
This seems like it'd be enough for someone feeling nasty to sue SPI for
contributory infringement of some patent or other.
Also, it doesn't give our users any easy way of just avoiding patent
encumbered technologies.
Which isn't to say lumping it into non-free is ideal by any measure,
but it's better than ignoring the issue.
> > Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from
> > main (#51473)
> > * Under discussion.
> > * Proposed by Oliver Elphick.
> > * Rewrite to the definition of what goes in non-free, so patents do
> > not keep software in non-free.
> > ( Proposal #46522 tries to do a similar thing. )
Erm, looking at the bug report, this is about Enhances: and *references to
non-free*, not which packages are in non-free?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpicBuBPgy9w.pgp
Description: PGP signature