Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > 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?
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
to indicate clauses 1, 3, and 5 of the DFSG.
> 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?
i didn't look at README.Debian. the only file i looked at was 'copyright'.
there were only a few packages where the copyright file had a summary of
why it was in non-free.