Re: Debtags facet for classification non-free packages
email@example.com (quoting me without attribution)
> >This is better, but misses quite a few common cases. OTTOMH, there are
> >also restrictions on distributing adapted versions,
> I think this could be marked by ...:change
Why? It's not a restriction on changing or distribution alone.
> >making private changes,
> In my original proposal it would be marked by no-source,
> in this probably with :change. Yes, it should be mentioned in description.
I suggest a :privacy marking.
> >I'm disappointed that so much effort is being made to encourage use
> >of non-free.
> I understand this opinion, but for example GFDL documentation was
> \"free enough\" a couple of months ago [...]
It's been widely seen as non-free for ages. There was just a delay in
it being fixed, as some sort of compromise between views.
> Everyone can have his/her own opinion, what is free enough for him/her.
So why are you arguing against marking privacy restrictions? I think
that's a class which some people would accept even if unhappy with
other use restrictions.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct