Re: Is vrms really still a Virtual Richard M. Stallman?
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 06:47:34PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Me neither. A "virtual debian-legal" would be something that analyzed
> > licenses:
> Only if you assume a virtual foo does everything the regular foo does.
No, but a virtual foo usually does *something* that the regular foo
also does. Since debian-legal's primary task is to analyze licenses,
that would be the natural expectation for a virtual d-l.
In particluar, d-l does not usually act as if having non-free software
installed on a system is bad. The list is usually polite to software
authors that approach it for help on writing licenses to achieve goals
consider inherently non-free.
Renaming vrms to a name derived from "debian-legal" would be as much
an injustice to debian-legal as "vrms" is to RMS.
> > $ debian-legalint COPYRIGHT.foo
> > COPYRIGHT.foo:33: warning: mentions specific protocol standard
> > COPYRIGHT.foo:57: talks about "best efforts" to contact upstream
> > COPYRIGHT.foo:64: US export control laws
> $ debian-legalint realplay
> Component: non-free
> Limitations:
> no-source
> non-debian
> no-redistribution
Apart from the syntactic details of the output format, how is this
different?
> Something like that would probably be both useful and feasible,
Feasible? Well, perhaps AI has made significant breakthroughs while I
was looking the other way, but I doubt it.
--
Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."
Reply to: