Subject: netscape should be under non-free

From: Kevin Dalley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 01:51:46 -0700

Currently, netscape is under the standard unstable binary release.

The Debian release of netscape should be under non-free, even though
it does not actually include netscape itself.  It requires netscape in
order to install correctly.  Since netscape used to under under
non-free, I suspect that this change is a mistake in the package
installation.

kevin
[email-masked]

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:16:56 -0400

> non-free, I suspect that this change is a mistake in the package

It was no mistake.  I built the installer from scratch.  If there was a
previous netscape package, I was unaware of it.  The current netscape.deb
package itself is public domain and I would like to leave it where it is.
There is no reason to restrict it's distribution.  I would consider a
comprimise and put it under "contrib".  That way it would still go on
all CDs, an important point, I believe.

Comments?

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.

---

From: Kevin Dalley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:58:28 -0700

While the netscape*.deb is completely redistributable, it is useless
without netscape, which is not redistributable.  We recently had a
similar discussion with another set of tools which included non-free
sections.  I believe that it was the pgp packages.  Wasn't the
decision to put everything in the non-free tree.

I suspect that every package in the non-free tree includes a Debian
part which is free, yet the package remains in non-free.

kevin

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:35:03 -0400

> part which is free, yet the package remains in non-free.

I'm sure they do, but that's not the point.  The netscape "package"
includes _nothing_ that is non-free.  Everything in it is, in fact,
in the public domain.

Moving it to non-free would mean it did not get distributed on some
or all of the CD-ROM distributions and I see no reason to limit it in
this way.  I would be willing to move it to "contrib", but I still prefer
it where it is.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

---

From: Bill Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:36:44 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Brian C. White wrote:

>[...]                                        The netscape "package"

I'd like to see the restriction keeping freely distributable (and
trusted, of course) binary-only packages out of the main distribution
lifted entirely.

I understand and appreciate that we very much prefer freely distributable
source.  However, I see that as an advocacy issue which should be
separated from the practical goal of offering the best and most useful
linux distribution we can to Debian users.

---

From: Doug Geiger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 20:43:58 -0400 (EDT)

> linux distribution we can to Debian users.

Well, in contrib the program s are still available, I believe the issue
was that in contrib, we're saying 'we don't can't make the source freely
available so you can't check it for trojan horses or viri' (or the other
reason for contrib - ALPHA/BETA software like wine/dosemu). But I do see
your point (personally I'd just like to see some sort of resolution so I
don't have to move abuse back and forth).

-- Run.exe
[email-masked] http://www.ntplx.net/~runexe/ Finger me for PGP key
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine megs for the secretaries fair,    | One disk to rule them all,
Seven megs for the hackers scarce,     | One disk to bind them,
Five megs for the grads in smoky lairs,| One disk to hold the files
Three megs for system source;          | And in the darkness grind 'em.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!

---

From: Bill Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:36:56 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Doug Geiger wrote:

>Well, in contrib the program s are still available, [...]

How about including contrib on the i-connect cdrom, with an
appropriate disclaimer?  Simon??