Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which would, in combination with an
extra configuration file, warn the user when he might be about to
install a package he's not allowed to use, according to the license.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Reply to: