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

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

Scripsit Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

> you are missing the point.

No, you are.

> this "Non-DFSG:" field is *NOT* intended to describe why a package fails a
> particular clause, it is intended solely to *list* which clause(s) it fails.
> nothing more, nothing less.

The point is that I don't se *any* reasonable use for such a listing.

> this is useful in itself.


> it also has the advantage of being factual.

But meaningless.

> a license either satisfies a particular DFSG clause, or it does not.

Oh, you wouldn't know.

Henning Makholm                                          Set your feet free!

Reply to: