Re: DSFG Explanation for non-free packages?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> I think there is. Raul has demonstrated people have a hard
> time figuring out licences; a file is important to point out why the
> package is not part of debian. These shall also help people make
> decisions about other licences; and find out of they are indeed
> non-DFSG.
I think there's some need for explanation, but I don't think this
warrants a separate file. If we had some legal expert go over the
thing and offer an opinion, that might be worth a separate file.
I think that basic issues about where how the package is categorized
should go into the changelog ("put in non-free because doesn't allow
commercial distribution"), and more complicated conclusions, should they
arise, would probably go in the debian readme.
Note that this same mechanism could apply to section and priority.
["put in base because needed by dpkg", or "shared libraries"]
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: