Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:03PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Sven Luther <email@example.com>
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> > > without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
> > > non-free had
> > > Non-DFSG: 3
> > What about : Non-DFSG: 3 [rationale for 3].
> I don't think the "3" is good for anything at all. Except perhaps for
> reinforcing false assumption that every problem with the DFSG can be
> pinpointed at exactly ones of the prongs in the guidelines.
Well, you would naturally list all clauses that fail, each one with a
rationale for this particular clause. And the 3 may be nice for
statistical purpose or something.