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

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example, 
> is _very_ broad. 

Yes, I know. So is 5, which makes it a lot less efficient for the
purpose I suggested. Still, that was only an example; and if it is to be
implemented, it should have an advisory character, at best.

> Off-hand, I think that when we're asked on -legal, 
> DFSG is failed the most often, and in a variety of non-obvious ways.
> Look at the number of ways the GFDL fails DFSG 3. You'd never expect 
> most of them. I think it too 'til the third very lengthy analysis on 
> -legal to find them.
> I think having a simple text file describing them, intended towards 
> reasonably knowledgeable human readers, is the best bet. Something like 
> the vrms suggestion.

Doing that is still possible, no? They're not mutually exclusive.

But having a machine-readable list of (generic) reasons why a certain
piece of software is non-free has its advantages. We should do that, if
possible (and it is possible).

> It could even be tersely put in the long description, where people 
> could see it before installing the package.

That might also be interesting.

Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Reply to: