Subject: Re: Keeping non-free separate

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 11:36 PDT

> Which pakages?  If you verified them, maybe they should be moved out
> of non-free?

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

Rather than put the non-free programs in the distribution, we should consider
dropping the non-free directory _and_its_contents_ from Debian. We don't
really need anything in there, and it would be nice to get closer to the
free software ideal. We could allow someone else to distribute the non-free
programs as an addition to Debian, instead of our distributing them as a
non-free component of an otherwise free system.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 21:27:14 +0200 (MET DST)

> to put them on a CD and sell them.

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.  Please
explain (at least give examples of such packages) - thanks!

> really need anything in there, and it would be nice to get closer to the

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...

I really don't want to start a flame war on this (so if anyone out there
disagrees with me, please tell me so in private mail, and I'll summarize
later) but at least for me, having the maximum number of useful packages
available (even if only for anonymous ftp) is important.  Free software
ideal, while still very important, is secondary for me, especially if
there is not yet a free replacement for a non-free but useful package.

Please note that I like Debian very much, even though I don't like a few
little things about it.  To improve a product, someone has to criticize
it, too.  Let's not get angry at each other!

Marek

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:29:15 -0400

> non-free component of an otherwise free system.

Please do not do this!  Some of those packages are important to some people.
(eg. pgp, zip, xv, pine).

Perhaps some of them are not restricted enough that they could be moved to
contrib, but if anything, I'd prefer to see "non-free" better organized.  No
computer/os survives without software, so reducing the amount of software
available for Debian is ultimately detrimental to our product.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

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

---

From: Mike Orr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 13:25:32 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Bruce Perens wrote:

> really need anything in there, 

Who doesn't need anything in there?  I think a significant number of
Debian users want access to the widest possible variety of software,
even if some of it comes with strings attached.

> and it would be nice to get closer to the

This is fine as long as we don't end up abandoning the non-free packages
with no place to go.  However, some questions to keep in mind are:

* Will enough of the mirror sites propogate an independant non-free so
that those who want the programs can find them without having to line up
at only one or two sites?

* Will whoever runs the new site be committed to quality control and keeping
the package format and directory structure (e.g., use of
/etc/nntpserver) in sync with the main distribution?  Otherwise we could
end up with incompatibilities between official and unofficial packages.

* Will the CD manufacturers simply exclude all of non-free because it's
"not a part of Debian"?  What effect will this have on people who don't
have access to ftp?  Will they refuse consider Debian or even uninstall
it because it doesn't have wanted/needed software that other
distributions have?

************ MIKE ORR <[email-masked]> *************
*      * 1405 NE 56th Street, Seattle, WA 98105 USA *      *
*      * (206) 522-9627, fax 328-6209               *      * 
*      * http://weber.u.washington.edu/~vielo/      *      *     
*      * english/russki/esperanto/deutsch/espanol.  *      *
********    ===> Insert silly quote here. <===      ********

---

From: Rob Browning <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 1996 16:28:47 -0500

> > really need anything in there, 

I am definitely against this.  I think things are quite apropriate the
way they are.  I feel that the debian site and it's mirrors should be
the defnitive location for debian pacakges.  non-free make it obvious
what's going on, and removing it altogether would just hurt the
distribution.  It also makes a good resting place for packages for we
haven't yet resolved copyright issues.

I do think that giving it a subject based directory heirarchy
paralleling the normal directory is a good idea.

--
Rob

---

From: Buddha Buck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:59:17 -0400

> explain (at least give examples of such packages) - thanks!

You managed to do that yourself...  PGP is used to sign the changes 
file (I believe), but because of the various patent, export, and 
commercial use restrictions, the US version cannot be exported outside 
of the US (or used commercially) and the International version can't be 
used in the US.  In my opinion, and in Bruce's opinion, this means that 
PGP cannot truely be considered free software, despite the wishes of 
it's authors.  However, it is perfectly fine to include on a CD that 
never crosses the US border.

The license for Alladin Ghostscript (in the non-free directory) does 
not allow certain forms of distribution (including bundling Ghostscript 
on a CD-ROM with commercial software).  This restriction would prevent 
a commercial software producer from bundling Debian including Alladin 
Ghostscript with his commercial product.  This is contrary to the level 
of "free-ness" we want in this distribution, so Alladin Ghostscript is 
therefore non-free.  However, the license explicitly allows 
distribution for profit on CD-ROMs containing only freely distributable 
software.

Pine requires explicit permission for redistribution by for-profit 
organisations, which means that Bruce can put it on his CD-ROMs, 
Software in the Public Interest (Debian) can put it on their CD-ROMs, 
but Yggdrisil or SSC (Linux Journal) can't.  That's too unfree to not 
be in non-free.

XV is shareware, and can't be bundled with "any product".  While XV is 
fairly liberal with its copying policy, it is non-free.  I believe that 
Bruce could bundle it on his CD, but I could be wrong.  XV also 
contains code for LZW compression (to support GIF), and that is 
potentially effected by patent restrictions.

Zip isn't allowed for commercial distribution (but bundling with 
commercial software is OK, with restrictions), and it is unclear if 
modification and subsequent redistribution is allowed.  As long as due 
care was taken, it could be shipped on CD-ROM.

Please note that this covers the majority of the "optional" non-free 
packages.  I don't have many of the "Extra" non-free packages 
installed, so I don't have the copyright notices handy.
--
     Buddha Buck                      [email-masked]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 15:54 PDT

Manoj:
> It'll be difficult for me to upload any packages without pgp

Yes, PGP is the one everyone mentions. There is a lot of other
interesting stuff in there, that there's really no good reason
_except_for_marketing_ for us to drop from the distribution. In
addition, there are a lot of people who don't want it dropped.

I guess we can leave things the way they are and just say that the
system is entirely free and there are directories of non-free and
contributed software that are accessories to, not really part of,
Debian.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Rob Browning <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 1996 18:06:15 -0500

> contributed software that are accessories to, not really part of,

This sounds about right.

--
Rob

---

From: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 1996 18:30:05 -0400

Hi,
>>"Bruce" == Bruce Perens <[email-masked]> writes:

Bruce> Rather than put the non-free programs in the distribution, we
Bruce> should consider dropping the non-free directory
Bruce> _and_its_contents_ from Debian. We don't really need anything
Bruce> in there, and it would be nice to get closer to the free
Bruce> software ideal. We could allow someone else to distribute the
Bruce> non-free programs as an addition to Debian, instead of our
Bruce> distributing them as a non-free component of an otherwise free
Bruce> system.

	It'll be difficult for me to upload any packages without pgp,
 seeing that the new guidelines suggest signing the packages ;-)

	manoj

-- 
 "I don't believe in psychology.  I believe in good moves." Bobby
 Fischer
Manoj Srivastava               Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918                A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-1249         University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[email-masked]> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

---

From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 02:59:05 +0200 (MET DST)

> but Yggdrisil or SSC (Linux Journal) can't.  That's too unfree to not 

We probably should ask the Pine developers on this one.  It could well
be free - quoted from /usr/doc/copyright/pine:

[...]  Re-distribution
by for-profit organizations requires permission from the University of
Washington.

The above permissions are hereby granted, provided that the Pine and Pico
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
copyright and trademark notices appear in all copies and that both the
above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation, and that the name of the University of Washington not be
used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the
software without specific, prior written permission.  [...]

So as long as the notices appear in all copies (they do - all copies
of the package contain /usr/doc/copyright/pine), and we don't use
the name of the University of Washington in advertising (similar
restrictions exist in BSD copyrights, probably no problem for us),
it should be OK for Debian to distribute Pine(tm).  Or am I missing
something?

> potentially effected by patent restrictions.

I think we should ask the author for permission to distribute xv.
It's probably not hard to get one as both Red Hat and Slackware can
distribute xv.  It's shareware, but free for personal use, and it
comes with source.  As for LZW, I think only compression is patented
(decompression is not), so it should be OK to use xv to view GIF
images, even if you are in the US...

> care was taken, it could be shipped on CD-ROM.

A few months ago I asked the authors of zip/unzip about this, and
received a reply that they have no problems with us distributing
their software as part of the Debian system.  Or do we need this in
writing? :-)

(Again, zip and unzip are part of Red Hat and Slackware.)

Thanks,

Marek