Re: Bug#72941: general: non-free packages should have special info in description.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:29:16AM +0000, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2000 01:18:25 +0200, Evan Thompson
> <evaner@evaner.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> >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.
>
> I think it would be great if each non-free package had a template:
>
> Private usage: yes/no
> Commercial usage: yes/no
> Modifications are allowed: yes/no
> Copying is allowed: yes/no
> Selling is allowed with minimal cost: yes/no (this is important for
> CD-vendors)
> Selling is allowed for any cost: yes/no
Package may appear together on CD with commercial software:
Package may be sold to people in Irak/.../...:
Package may be advertised:
Package must be advertised:
Debian packager guarantees correctness of these answers:
SPI will let itself be sued over this:
The pattern here is: this list can go on for ever. The whole point of
non-free is that it can be characterised by what it IS NOT. The reasons
why are buried in the specific copyrights and you *should* consult a
lawyer before you decide to do anything other than mirroring them on an
ftp site.
This is the most practical reason why Debian keeps hammering on the
issue of free software: it's so much easier to deal with.
--
The idea is that the first face shown to people is one they can readily
accept - a more traditional logo. The lunacy element is only revealed
subsequently, via the LunaDude. [excerpted from the Lunatech Identity Manual]
Reply to: