[arch-dev-public] Definition of non-free for repo-reorg

Paul Mattal paul at mattal.com
Thu Jul 12 12:51:25 EDT 2007

Dan McGee wrote:
> Except that...I thought the issue had nothing to do with package
> installation. It has to do with distribution, no?
> These are two separate issues for sure, and now we have managed to
> make this much more complicated by bringing pacman into it.

It's true that the issue has many aspects. Some of them have to do 
with distribution, others have to do with having the source, etc. 
Some can be solved by pacman (or something using libalpm), some cannot.

I recommend that someone who is really fired up about the license 
separation issue propose something that scratches their itch and 
helps implement it. If nobody is that fired up about it, nothing 
will happen, which is fine with me.

I would like to figure out what can/can't we distribute in what 
might be our shiny new [core] repo, since we will be distributing 
ISOs/CDs of that. What are the requirements? GPL or any less 
restrictive license is okay? We should probably make a list of 
acceptable licenses.

- P

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list