Re: Freely distributable non-free packages
[ May be debian-legal is more proper? ]
On Monday 7 December 1998, at 10 h 15, the keyboard of Avery Pennarun
<apenwarr@worldvisions.ca> wrote:
> An interesting feature for non-free packages would be to have a special
> header indicating WHY they are non-free. For example:
>
> Package: ugly
> ...
> Non-Free: unmodified source-only no-fees patents crypto OTHER
Based on my experience of lengthy discussions with the authors (a good part of the life of a Debian maintainer), I suggest the following tags, clearly separating distribution and use (to ease the life of CD editors, which don't care about use restrictions). Note my tags are intended for the CD editors or for the end users, not for Debian developers:
"distribution-no-profit": the licence prevents commercial distribution, such as a commercial CD, but allows costs which cover the expenses (a bit fuzzy, I know, but it exists).
"distribution-no-money": the licence prevents distribution for any cost.
"distribution-no-redistribution": the licence allows Debian to distribute the software (official mirrors and Debian-sold-CDs) but you cannot redistribute it.
"use-no-commercial": the licence prevents (or subjects to prior authorization) the use of the software for a commercial purpose.
"OTHER": present situation. Read the specific licence.
Obviously, several tags can appear simultaneously.
I don't really understand the "we risk to be liable if we tag wrongly". It is exactly the same problem when we put something in main: we can do it wrongly.
Reply to: