[Mattia Dongili] > * Package name : acpica-unix > > iasl compiles ASL (ACPI Source Language) into AML (ACPI Machine > Language). This AML is suitable for inclusion as a DSDT in system > firmware. It also can disassemble AML, for debugging purposes. The name is a bit silly, IMO. It's not as though Debian is likely to get a acpica-win32 package in the near future. The binary package should probably be named either 'acpica' or 'iasl'. The source package could, I suppose, be either 'acpica' or 'acpica-unix'. The source package name matters less because users won't see it directly in most cases. > I'm not very comfortable with the licence language and I'd like somebody > to proof-read it before uploading this stuff. > I'd say this licence grants enough rights, but there are also a lot of > "must". I'll leave debian-legal to dissect this one in detail - but some bits of the license are sloppy. For example, requiring approval from the US Dept. of Commerce before exporting the software - from *any* country - is probably not the intent; they just forgot to stipulate that they meant exporting it "from the United States". Forcing all licensees, regardless of location, to agree to comply with the U.S. Export Administration Regulations is silly, and probably unenforceable. The copyright notice says "all rights reserved" right before the rest of the license spells out several rights which are, in fact, not reserved. The license also tells us we *must* read it before *using* the software, as though it were some sort of click-wrap - this too is probably unenforceable, but if enforceable, is non-free. (How is Debian supposed to ensure that users read the license before using the software? What if all packages said that?)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature