Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:57:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
>
> > This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria above others
> > in importance. If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less
> > discriminatory way would be to flag (internally or on a central web
> > site somewhere) each package in non-free according to which parts of
> > DFSG it fails.
>
> I think it would be more manageable to flag freedoms that the package
> still does provide, for example
>
> modified-noncommercial-redistribution
> unmodified-noncommercial-redistribution
> unmodified-commercial-redistribution
> all-freedoms-in-the-gfdl
> dfsg-freedom-of-all-runnable-programs
> dfsg-freedom-of-all-main-cpu-runnable-programs
While this is being worked on, it might be useful to add a tag for
whether packages can be autobuilt, and perhaps (as non-US is going
away soon, and maybe we could do crypto-in-non-free), a tag for
whether a package complies with BXA export regs.
Ian.
--
Ian Beckwith - ianb@nessie.mcc.ac.uk - http://nessie.mcc.ac.uk/~ianb/
GPG fingerprint: AF6C C0F1 1E74 424B BCD5 4814 40EC C154 A8BA C1EA
Reply to: