"non-us" misleading? (was: Re: Non-free section )
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> If we start to make detailed explanations of the legal status of
> packages, we are going to have to be very precise.
We would just "force" the user to read the COPYRIGHT notice of a non-free
package: let him confirm he read it. No own explanations. (This should be
optional for "free" packages.)
I'm not sure if the simple system we have today is sufficient in a legal
manner. Although it's clear to me that "non-free" means I have to read the
COPYRIGHT, this might not be the case for a new user. It might be a good
idea if "dselect" says a few words about packages in non-free (e.g. by
displaying the README when determing the right directories under [A]ccess
method).
The same is true for "non-us": are people in france allowed to use the
encryption-packages? (no)
I'm no lawyer, but if the copyright/licence/usage information is displayed
before installation (-> attempt of usage), the user would have a chance to
cancel it.
If we do not give him this chance, one could get the opinion that Debian
(or even the maintainer) inveigles the user ... and therefore can be sued.
Even "dpkg" could have an extra option to install those packages
(--accept-license --usage_allowed).
Anybody has a lawyer aside to clarify the situtation?
-Winfried
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: