tomas writes: > This is one of those cases: if you're using a piece of non-free > software, you should know about it, and you should know which buy > decision led to it (so you can take that into account at your next buy > decision).
There is also a practical reason to keep non-free for the benefit of downstream distributions, CD makers, etc. Some of the licenses on stuff in non-free make it ok for Debian to distribute the stuff but attempt to place restrictions on what recipients can do with it. As long as you stick to Main you need only read the DFSG to know what your redistribution rights are. As soon as you go into Non-free you have to study each license. This can even hit end-users. Non-free licenses can contain clauses barring "commercial use" (without defining the term) and other similar restrictions. This package is not in Debian, but I recall a "free" text editor that was distributed on the Net back in the last century that barred use by the South African police. It would have qualified for inclusion in Non-free. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
