Re: [gNewSense-users] What part of Debian is nonfree?

[Michael Dorrington]

On 08/05/11 06:26, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 19:56:49 +0100
> Michael Dorrington <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Michał Masłowski wrote:
>>> http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/gnewsense/metad/annotate/head:/parkes/blacklist.nonfree
>>> lists some non-free packages from main.
>>
>> That list needs updating. Looking down the first few items:
>>
>> aee - "Valid" due to disagreement between Debian and FSF.
>> afio - Not in stable (squeeze) or testing (wheezy) due to licence.
>> app-install-data-commercial - Not in Debian.
>> b43-fwcutter - In contrib, not main.
>> bcm43xx-fwcutter - Not in Debian.
> 
> A lot of these things are added because it costs nothing to have them
> removed (as they arent there), but having them made syncing with the
> libreplanet wiki much easier.
> The reason aside, i agree it could do with a cleanup (and needs
> updating from the bts too)

I can understand from a technical point of view but it does make Debian
look worse than it is. Debian takes removing non-free software from the
installer and 'main', which is the only repository the installer
configures on install, seriously. Though this is not the same as
removing software that does not meet the "Free System Distribution"
guidelines defined at
<http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html>.

>>> http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/gnewsense/metad/annotate/head:/parkes/blacklist.needsclean
>>> lists packages which contain or recommend non-free software, but
>>> could be modified into free ones.
>>
>> This needs updating too, for instance, thunderbird is not in Debian.
> 
> Its called icedove in debian, so that entry would need to be renamed.

Are you saying icedove is not free software? Or that it does not meet
the "Free System Distribution" guidelines?

Mike.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature