I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a gross
violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces
payment from non-DD mirror operators.
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey area, so I present:
Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence v2
The instance of this software offered to the debian project may be copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian project or as part of an operating system distribution prepared by a debian developer. Any distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to the copyright holder. The software may not be modified and must not be used for tasks involving nuclear reactions. The software is covered by patent EP 394160 so it may only be used by holders of a suitable patent licence until 2010. This software may not be distributed on a removable magnetic disk containing any other copyrighted material unless it is a distribution prepared by a debian developer.
[ENDS]
Are there any taboos about asking for payment from for-charge mirrors, if there are any?
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your request borders on the absurdly unreasonable.
Because instances which have never happened do not exist.I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice.It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to.I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we > distribute
such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims > about
existing pracice to making claims about future practice.
You may not generalise like that. It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible.
Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. As I understand it, if the package is well-formed, not full of bugs and causes no legal problem for the debian mirrors, then it can get into non-free (or non-US/non-free). See the Debian Policy Manual at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free
You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archiveThe social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/LinuxAnd what is this "substantial change"?Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary
distributions.
exist because of an oversight in the social contract?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar claim about "auxiliary distributions" may be an oversight.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]