Bug#809705: general: let people use non-free software but opt-out of non-open software
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 05/01/16 08:15, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11)
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> Your second item has been brought up before with different
>>> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest
>>> in splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various other
>>> non-free sub components.
>>
>> Another one that is worth mentioning here --- which I discussed in the
>> context of non-free.org with Dafydd Harries and others --- is
>> introducing a debtags facet to capture the reason why a package is in
>> non-free. At least two hierarchies come to mind: 1) which point of DFSG
>> is not respected, and 2) which one of the 4 freedoms are not granted.
>>
>> I've had on my TODO list proposing the relevant debtags facets since at
>> least 2 years, but never found the time to actually do that. This is a
>> very actionable item: it is enough to follow the procedure for proposing
>> a new debtags. (Procedure that I cannot find right now, but IIRC it
>> includes coming up with a list of tag names + a list of at least N
>> packages, with N relatively low, that are already in the archive and
>> that would carry each tag.)
>
> while I would welcome this sort of information being captured using debtags,
> this would not help me if I wanted to tell apt which packages are okay for me
> and which ones are not because apt cannot set pin priorities according to a
> package's debtags, right?
>
> Also, can the reason why something is in non-free not be captured by increased
> and a more structured use of DEP-5 (machine-readable debian/copyright)?
>
> Certainly I'd welcome support of apt for both: debtags *and* licenses in
> debian/copyright :)
>
> My own motivation to have better control over non-free is my package
> ldraw-parts which is released under the "Creative Commons Attribution Licence
> version 2.0" and thus non-free. I can imagine that more people than just me
> would find that license acceptable enough.
Are you suggesting some kind of scale ?
Jerome
>
> Thanks!
>
> cheers, josch
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWi2/7AAoJEIC/w4IMSybj5lMH/i9u8R5lhuhLmTubJ1REFNZg
Pb+Cg6wNlBSIM/Za3lS5LzcePxZae/7g8ZLf6B/7VYHPPJQheczsX6YfRoa5as1C
47ArS6uR8sOdFOhvNOmR/hWKW2o9RE+3kLnlvz0I0qnc25ty7cP31w8G04W7yQCO
+fM/4XcW3MI+wtZpwZFrupm1DCHUpVpcwHLdrWJ7Bn0wmwHOWW8N7DgV9RsnBETT
FnMOAN+8f/DyOQviJPMuKRS2xDcbL0eFaaWrfdq909jdO7JJLHDsEdYYrmc5tHiH
Ajdg04jmA8XoZVzE1JYgL0LL56Y8r50jDqsJ9p7p4tPJRoLAoeT6ObEVXJ3Whh8=
=yNg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: