[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#72941: general: non-free packages should have special info in description.

On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 08:17:07PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 05:54:21PM +0000, Marc Haber wrote:
> > >evaner> non-free packages should have some indicator (in description or what-have-you) of why they don't follow DFSG so that CD vendors and all others conserned know why they're not in main.
> > >evaner> 
> > >
> > >I believe this is in the file
> > >/usr/doc/{packagename}/copyright
> > >for each package, according to policy (v.
> > >
> > >  2.1.6. Further copyright considerations
> > >  ---------------------------------------
> > >
> > >     Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
> > >     and distribution license in the file
> > >     /usr/share/doc/<package-name>/copyright (see Section 6.6, `Copyright
> > >     information' for details).
> > 
> > But to read that, you'll have to download and install the package.
> dpkg or apt-cache will show you `Section: non-free/*' even if the package is
> not installed... maybe not prominently enough, but they will.

Yes, but I think the original request wasn't so much for an 'if' the
package in question was non-free, but a 'why'.  Certainly for some (say,
Netscape) this would be obvious.  For others (say, qmail or pine), the
distinction isn't as clear.  [Yeah, yeah, it's clear for me: but a lot
of people will argue that they get source, so it must be 'ok', even if
they have limited ability to share that source with others.]

I think it would be good, but I also think it would be good to have
non-free stuff point to free stuff.  (eg, "You really shouldn't install
ssh-nonfree or ssh2, as the OpenSSH [ssh] package provides better
functionality and is DFSG compliant." )

Reply to: