RE: [seul-edu] ISO evals

["Darryl Palmer" <Darryl_Palmer_Jr@acm.org>]

I think it pretty much comes down to this:

1) We don't have much time, at least before NECC.
2) Why should we promote/elevate non-free software to the level of free
software?
3) Do we have the right to distribute it via SEUL/Edu website?
4) Can it be distributed via a general mirror site?
5) Do we have to show a license agreement to the user before installing
it, like using it for only non-commercial purposes?
6) Can we just make CDs or have other people make CDs and hand them out
like candy?

For this release, it will be so much easier for us to walk the line and
say it is only includable if it is free.
 
Darryl

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-seul-edu@seul.org [mailto:owner-seul-edu@seul.org] On Behalf
Of Doug Loss
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:16 PM
To: seul-edu@seul.org
Subject: Re: [seul-edu] ISO evals

Darryl Palmer wrote:
> Add xplns to the list.  It is free to distribute but the source is not
> available.

I let this lay longer than I intended.  We haven't completely decided 
what is and what isn't acceptable for our ISO.  Do we require all 
packages to be Free/Open Source, do we require all packages to meet 
Debian standards for inclusion, do we accept packages that are freely 
distributable even if source isn't available, etc.?  I realize that it 
we go with a laxer standard for inclusion we won't be in lockstep with 
DebianEdu, but I'd hate to see good, useful educational software that we

  have permission to distribute be avoided for philosophical reasons 
without our having examined our reasoning closely enough.