[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 09:08:50PM +0000, John Lines wrote:
> > > It's probably in non-free, instead of not being distributed at all,
> > > by mistake.
> > 
> > Needs verifying.  The description says: "Due to license considerations,
> > this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your
> > system.  After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to build
> > the binary package and install it."  This doesn't sound like a package
> > whose maintainer has been careless about copyright.
> > 
> 
> It might be a good idea to have a file with a standard name, such as
> README.non-DFSG which went with files in non-free. This could have a free-form
> section for Debian comments on, for example, why the package can be distributed
> at all (if this might seem not to be allowed from a casual reading of the
> copyright file), or why it is in non-free.
> 
> There could also be a set of tags, able to be machine parsed, which say, for
> example which sections of the DFSG caused the package to be in non-free, or
> classes or categories similar to those suggested by MJ Ray - such as
> "no commercial", "no modification", "patent", "compatibility", "notification"
> and "other" 
> 
> Putting this information into a separate file would reserve the copyright file
> for the upstream information, and make it clear which was Debian commentary
> on the legal position, saving README.Debian for technical packaging issues.
> 
> The README.non-DFSG could also contain pointers to free alternatives if they
> exist.

What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: