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

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> so, what exactly is in non-free?

Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.

> since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it myself.  a
> classification of every non-free package that was in my debian mirror.  a total
> of 273 packages, but only 259 packages had a 'copyright' file (odd, i thought
> there were more...about 350 or so.  we must have got rid of a lot of non-free
> packages).


> i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license.  i looked quickly at each one to
> try to find out why it had been classified as non-free.  in some cases, that
> means i may not have noted down all the reasons why a particular package is
> non-free.

Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against
non-free packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into
the copyright file with an explanation as to why this is in non-free?
I think that would be helpful at least for future examinations like
this, but could also be used to auto-generate a website with all the
summaries, if this paragraph would be written in a fixed form.

Or is this commonly explained in README.Debian or elsewhere? Craig, did
you see a lot of package where this is perhaps already the case?


Reply to: