Subject: Re: Keeping non-free separate

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 15:35 PDT

Bruce Perens:
> No, I verified that they were not free, but that their licenses allowed me
> to put them on a CD and sell them.

From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[email-masked]>
> Sorry to bother you again, but I thought non-free was precisely for
> packages which may not be sold on CDs.  Now I am confused.

You're not the only one. For example, shareware programs can be "sold" on CD
but require payment for use. I'd be more specific, but I can't get to
"master" at the moment. I'd better send Simon a note...

Bruce:
> Rather than put the non-free programs in the distribution, we should consider
> dropping the non-free directory _and_its_contents_ from Debian.

Marek:
> I don't think so.  There are some useful packages there, which have no
> GNU replacements - for example, one of them is commonly used by Debian
> developers to sign the changes files...

Yes, I know. I'm thinking about how Debian should be differentiating itself
from the commercial Linux distributions. One way would be for the system to
be _entirely_ free software, since they are all picking up commercial
software on their CDs. I have previously been a champion of the non-free
software in Debian, but I am re-thinking my position on it.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:32:36 -0400

> "master" at the moment. I'd better send Simon a note...

This is one of the things I would like to improve about non-free's
organization.  It would be a "Good Thing" (tm) in my opinion to at least
differentiate between "non-free to distribute" and "non-free to use".

CD-Rom makers could then just leave out the "non-free to distribute"
stuff and press the rest.  All of the "non-free to use" could actually be
merged in with the rest of the distribution as far as Debian is concerned.
It might be nice to keep it separate, though, to make it easy for the user
to see which packages are and which are not free to use.

You could drop the "non-free to distribute" stuff completely from Debian, or
put ReadMe files in as with kermit.  CD makers would then not have to do
anything but copy everything directly to their masters and start the presses.

Done that way, only things currently distributable by FTP but not CD would be
dropped from the distribution.  To be honest, I never really understood the
wisdom in allowing FTP but not CD distribution, but hey...  I'm a for-pay
s/w developer, so what do I know.  <grin>

This, of course, does not solve the problems with pgp and the like that
are only "non-free to distribute" under some circumstances.  Those calls
will have to be made by each distributer (whether by FTP or CD), but it
would be nice if the main Debian archive had everything.

> software in Debian, but I am re-thinking my position on it.

It is my opinion that, if you in any way restrict what can be "Debian", then
you will ultimately restrict both your user base and your developer base.
Survival depends on user base.  Being first is the best, being better helps,
restricting your users when they move to your system is death.

Users, in general, do not care about distributability.  They only care
whether they are allowed to use something.  Many don't even care about that.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 17:09 PDT

> differentiate between "non-free to distribute" and "non-free to use".

There are shades and overlaps here. This is why I think it's good to stick
it all in one directory and make _a_file_, as Marek suggested, with an
explanation of why stuff is there.

> stuff and press the rest.

By the way, just FYI, we don't _guarantee_ that there are no non-free programs
in the rest of the distribution. The entire liability of pressing a CD is on
the CD manufacturer.

> To be honest, I never really understood the
> wisdom in allowing FTP but not CD distribution

Presumably the FTP site does not charge a fee for retrieval. FTP
provides the option to retrieve files on an individual basis, which CD
does not. Those two reasons are why we can get away with placing some
stuff up for FTP but not on a CD.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 17:14 PDT

> This is why I think it's good to stick it all in one directory and
> make _a_file_

Oops, before I make people nervous, by "one directory" I mean "non-free".

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Chris Fearnley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 13:39:35 -0400 (EDT)

'Brian C. White wrote:'
>differentiate between "non-free to distribute" and "non-free to use".

Umm, "non-free to distribute" shouldn't be on /any/ ftp site, right?

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Linux/Internet Consulting
[email-masked]                     |    UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

---

From: Doug Geiger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:06:22 -0400 (EDT)

> Umm, "non-free to distribute" shouldn't be on /any/ ftp site, right?

I believe 'non-free to distribute' means, you can't sell it for money
(many people do this - they give the program away, but you can't sell a CD
with that program on it). In other words, ftp sites=OK, CD's=Not OK

-- 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: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 18 Jun 1996 09:24:00 +0200

> with that program on it). In other words, ftp sites=OK, CD's=Not OK

I think it actually means "there are unusual distribution restrictions on  
this, you have to check it out first".

Yours is one possible example. Another is the "you can distribute it just  
fine, as long as you don't put commercial programs on the same CD" stuff I  
believe Aladdin ghostscript has. There are probably more variations.

MfG Kai

---

From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 03:30:11 +0200 (MET DST)

> from the commercial Linux distributions. One way would be for the system to

Debian is already differentiating itself from them - by its open
development by volunteers, availability of the current development
version (not only releases every few months), public bug tracking
system, and powerful packaging system.  I think this is fine as is,
there is no need to differentiate itself more than that.

> software in Debian, but I am re-thinking my position on it.

I can't speak for all Debian users, of course, but I think most of
them, like me, are probably interested more in a useful system and
less in political goals like having 100% (not 99%) free software.
Let's differentiate ourselves a little from the FSF too.  Don't get
me wrong, they make a lot of good free software which I use every
day and I recognize their work, but I think too much politics is
not good.  I call my system "Linux", not "Lignux" :-).

As long as most software is free, I don't mind a few shareware
programs (distributed with permission from the authors, of course)
included in the distribution.  If I don't use them, I don't have to
pay for them, and some of them are free for personal use (which is
probably the case for most Debian users anyway).

Thanks,

Marek