On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, 23:37:23 EST, Adam Bolte <abo...@systemsaviour.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 09:05:26AM +1000, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:56:27PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
> > > > However let's not forget about some multimedia content
> > > > there which is not necessarily evil but merely a non-fit for
> > > > strict 'main' criteria.
>
> > > Heck, if we can get the Debian distribution good enough to make forks
> > > like gNewSense practically redundant, perhaps contributors to those
> > > projects might like to instead work on maintaining such a repository?
> >
> > Not sure i follow - people who want to use free software so much they
> > contribute to an fsf free distro will be very unlikely to start
> > working on a nonfree repo.
>
> Not everybody's definition of free software is exactly the same. FSF
> free != DFSG free.
>
> My understanding is that Dmitry was referring to free software that is
> thought to potentially infringe on patents or otherwise not be
> considered free by the DFSG. This is why I also referred to the GFDL
> documentation which would be a similar situation - it is considered free
> by the FSF yet excluded from main. If other distributions use the FSF
> definition and would normally include such items, they might perhaps
> choose to make a Debian repository instead to do just that. It would be
> a lot less effort than maintaining an entire distribution fork, if they
> felt so inclined.
Ah, I see what you mean. The people who worked on free distros would contribute
to maintaining the doco or patent encumbered packages.
While i cant comment on the likelyhood in general, i will note if proprietary
software was in the same repo they would be unlikely to contribute. In that
instance i feel it would be more likely they start another repo.
Thanks,
kk
_______________________________________________
Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list
Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
