On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:36:57PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote: > I completely agree with Jason. <AOL>So do I</AOL> (just to add another voice) > But I would like to see (in time, not immediately) that > non-free packages explains why they are not free from the very > beginning, aka in the description field of the package. Probably this > should be imposed through the policy for non-free packages. Very good. We could even define keywords or standard reasons why anything is in non-free. I wish to add that according to my impression, most of the stuff in non-free is there because of IMHO minor violations of the DFSG, as: Clauses that prohibit to sell the program, some silly acknowledging needs,... Don't get me wrong, I still do consider the DFSG rules appropriate, but compared with really closed source software, these are minor points and putting them all together and ban them sounds too much ideological for me. Nils -- Plug-and-Play is really nice, unfortunately it only works 50% of the time. To be specific the "Plug" almost always works. --unknown source
Attachment:
pgpmeB3LsGaZe.pgp
Description: PGP signature