On 4/16/05, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A lot of people can't understand why we would consider software that comes > with source code, is freely distributable, and may be modified in any way to > be non-free simply because its license states that you may not use it if you > are a business/work at a nuclear plant/are a member of a neo-Nazi group. So, > should we put software like that into main so that they don't "think the > differences between free and non-free software are pretty small"?
How about having a new section, "open-source", or something, for the things that fall in the category described above? (i.e. software that is _almost_ free, but has some small limitation over some freedom) I know that having a new section would be a bit cumbersome, but I do feel that the mixture of different "freeness" in non-free is a bit unfair for those pieces of software that just fail a small point. Would this be possible? -- Besos, Marga
