Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
Scripsit Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> you are missing the point.
No, you are.
> this "Non-DFSG:" field is *NOT* intended to describe why a package fails a
> particular clause, it is intended solely to *list* which clause(s) it fails.
> nothing more, nothing less.
The point is that I don't se *any* reasonable use for such a listing.
> this is useful in itself.
How?
> it also has the advantage of being factual.
But meaningless.
> a license either satisfies a particular DFSG clause, or it does not.
Oh, you wouldn't know.
--
Henning Makholm Set your feet free!
Reply to: