Subject: Keeping non-free separate

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 22:16:34 +0300

Someone suggested that we should forget about non-free and fold all
non-free software into the normal distribution.  While I'm an advocate
about this, the proposal has real problems.  Most importantly, it means
that every CD producer would have to go through all packages and make
sure that they can be sold on a CD.  That's a lot of extra work, and it
means that fewer CD producers will be doing the work.

It also opens Debian for accusations, if and when the copyright holder of
a non-free package gets annoyed.  I was reminded about this when going
through some old files (yes, my hard disk is getting filled again).

I found some saved news articles from 1994, when shadow passwords were
put into the C library.  The code was adapted from existing code, which
was not free.  The author threw a fit and accused, among others, Debian
and Ian Murdock for stealing his code.  (Unfairly, as far as I can tell.)

(I think the shadow code has been released under another license now,
but there's still a lot of bad feeling floating around shadow passwords
and the author.)

---

From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 03:01:07 +0200 (MET DST)

> means that fewer CD producers will be doing the work.

The problem with a separate non-free directory is that some things are
non-free in some countries and free in others.  There are US software
patents, crypto stuff etc.  Instead, we could keep just one distribution
and a list of "questionable" packages (with short explanations what is
the exact problem with each particular package).  This should make it
easier for CD producers in various countries to distribute as complete
Debian systems as possible within the local laws.

It has been done before - CD producers who want to distribute copies of
the sunsite Linux archive should read the file "info.for.cdrom.vendors"
in the top level directory.  There is no separate "non-free" part of
sunsite, just a list of "questionable" packages.  Why not do the same
for Debian?

> and Ian Murdock for stealing his code.  (Unfairly, as far as I can tell.)

I think it was Yggdrasil, not Debian.  Anyway, putting libc in non-free
wouldn't make a lot of sense, so the author had better talk to H.J.
about removing the code from libc...

The non-free code is still in libc4, so it probably should be replaced
with the free (released under LGPL by the author) version from libc5
(or just removed - I don't think any a.out programs are using it).

> but there's still a lot of bad feeling floating around shadow passwords

Yes, the complete shadow suite (not just the shadow library) has been
released by the author under BSD-style copyright.  There is no longer
need for any bad feeling, the code is free, and I currently maintain
it.  Let's forget the past, and talk about the future...

Marek