[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[directory-discuss] Repositories permitting but not yet carrying non-fre

From: David Seaward
Subject: [directory-discuss] Repositories permitting but not yet carrying non-free software
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:21:06 +0200

Hi all,

ownCloud Community Edition and are both free software
applications tackling the same issue (local installation of network
applications, avoiding SaaSS).

They both provide access to software repositories (stores) that
implicitly permit non-free software, but do not carry it (yet):

* (search for proprietary
license returns no results)

* (none listed, but permitted, see!topic/sandstorm-dev/YhB6piu6CsI )

Based on responses to my question about "community editions", am I
correct in assuming that this is acceptable, even if they do end up
listing proprietary options, since they will be clearly marked (in the
license field)?

If so, please reconsider my cautionary statement on a proposed entry
for Sandstorm at
(although this entry could also be improved by focusing on Sandstorm
the framework, not the project/service/company). I placed
it there for review because my understanding at the time was that
Firefox is not in FSD because it links to AMO, which contains
proprietary plugins (presumably not labelled).

Perhaps it should simply be placed on the main entry page (and
similarly for ownCloud)?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]