Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis: > On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > >> > >> good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like: > >> > >> Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5 > > > > That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other > > purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which would, in combination with an > > extra configuration file, warn the user when he might be about to > > install a package he's not allowed to use, according to the license. > > I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example, > is _very_ broad. Yes, I know. So is 5, which makes it a lot less efficient for the purpose I suggested. Still, that was only an example; and if it is to be implemented, it should have an advisory character, at best. > Off-hand, I think that when we're asked on -legal, > DFSG is failed the most often, and in a variety of non-obvious ways. > > Look at the number of ways the GFDL fails DFSG 3. You'd never expect > most of them. I think it too 'til the third very lengthy analysis on > -legal to find them. > > I think having a simple text file describing them, intended towards > reasonably knowledgeable human readers, is the best bet. Something like > the vrms suggestion. Doing that is still possible, no? They're not mutually exclusive. But having a machine-readable list of (generic) reasons why a certain piece of software is non-free has its advantages. We should do that, if possible (and it is possible). > It could even be tersely put in the long description, where people > could see it before installing the package. That might also be interesting. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and the real reason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend