Re: Licenses links broken
Jens Seidel <email@example.com> wrote: [...]
> MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
I think it's a bad idea to link to Wikipedia because anyone can edit
it, but I see that expat has been used instead. Good, thanks.
> There are also many non-free licenses mentioned without a link. Why?
It was enough of a pain in the bum to find accurate links for those
licences from the main distribution. I didn't spend the extra time
supporting non-free because it shouldn't be encouraged. Some of them
had multiple licences under the exact same name too, so which do we
link? The latest? The most restrictive? One that corresponds to
some package on the non-free mirrors at the moment?
GNU LibGPL wasn't linked because it was moving around GNU's site at
the time IIRC and I didn't know a good URL for the vhfpl.
The "Work in Progress" section is very out of date. Replace the
second and third paragraphs with a simple link to debian-legal's
Hope that explains,
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237