[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> [CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > so, what exactly is in non-free?
> Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
> > since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it myself.  a
> > classification of every non-free package that was in my debian mirror.  a total
> > of 273 packages, but only 259 packages had a 'copyright' file (odd, i thought
> > there were more...about 350 or so.  we must have got rid of a lot of non-free
> > packages).
> [...]
> > i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license.  i looked quickly at each one to
> > try to find out why it had been classified as non-free.  in some cases, that
> > means i may not have noted down all the reasons why a particular package is
> > non-free.
> Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against
> non-free packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into
> the copyright file with an explanation as to why this is in non-free?
> I think that would be helpful at least for future examinations like
> this, but could also be used to auto-generate a website with all the
> summaries, if this paragraph would be written in a fixed form.
> Or is this commonly explained in README.Debian or elsewhere? Craig, did
> you see a lot of package where this is perhaps already the case?

Notice that some few years back, it was considered not worth it to do
such for non-free, saying that the ones who want to
distribute/use/whatever non-free should go look trough the copyright
file themselves, but i agree with you that this is usefull.

And again, sorry for miswriting your name.


Sven Luther

Reply to: