Re: [directory-discuss] Are "community editions" acceptable entries?

[Michał Masłowski]

> I have picked up (somewhere) that it is preferred not to endorse
> software applications where there are free and non-free versions with
> the same name. Does this rule of thumb apply on FSD?

Your entry must be useful (e.g. provide information how to obtain the
described program which some users might consider useful) and must not
refer to nonfree software or documentation.  Some packages have free
code but not free documentation, so their entries link to source
archives without that documentation (it's why the Celery entry was
removed: their source tarball includes the nonfree manual).  Vendor
websites usually recommend the nonfree variant, so don't link there if
it does.

If the software is included in Debian main, a link to a page on
packages.debian.org and to the source tarball available from Debian
might satisfy the directory requirements.  (Check licenses regardless of
what you do.)

> Similar logic would apply to Chromium, VirtualBox and others so a
> final word on this would be appreciated (even if the conclusion is
> that these things need to be handled on a case-by-case basis :D ).

These are easy: they contain software that is nonfree, needs nonfree
development tools or have unknown licensing, so they cannot be included
here.  pdftk is different: its website recommends nonfree software and
it has DRM, we link to the Debian package since it doesn't recommend
nonfree software and Debian removes the DRM enforcement.

A sad thing: we should check all AGPL-licensed non-GNU software on the
directory if their links to proprietary enterprise editions are
sufficiently hidden.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature