Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-15 13:01:16) > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:41:14 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09) > [...] > > > I don't think the exception may also apply when the license text > > > is the *actual payload* of the package (for instance, a package > > > shipping the text for CC-by-nc-nd-v1.0, when nothing in the > > > package itself is released under that license). > [...] > > > > That's an interesting view. > > > > Several packages now in Debian main contain license fulltexts > > without those licensing terms being applied at all to the project > > covered by that package. > > > > Examples: > > > > * licensecheck - includes license fulltexts in its testsuite > > I am perplexed: I fully understand the usefulness of packages such as > licensecheck, decopy, and so forth, and I acknowledge the need for > actual data in their test suites... > > But on the other hand, can non-free data be shipped in the test suite > of a source package in Debian main? Evidently it can - question is if we are breaking a rule by doing so. As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software". As I understand it, you personally classify license fulltexts as "non-free software" and then add a rule that they are exceptionally accepted in main under specific narrow circumstances. If you agree with above, Francesco, then I suggest going forward that we talk about the "license fulltexts are non-free software but accepted narrowly in main" as being a _proposal_ rather than current rules in Debian. Perhaps that shift might also help you being less perplexed? :-) [ dropping remaining questions until surreounding logic is clarified ] - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature