Re: ``Disclaimer'' field to document non-free-ness reasons [ Was: non-free? ]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:23:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Questions for my -policy friends: can I conclude from the above that the
> > Disclaimer field is to be used _only_ for contrib/non-free packages, and
> > only to explain the reason of their (transitive) non-free-ness? Or is
> > there a risk of overloading it for other reasons? (The current text
> > implies it is not, but the name is a bit generic, and I prefer safe over
> > sorry.)
> I believe the intent was for it to be used only for this purpose. It
> probably would have been better to give it a more unambiguous name.
As one of the DEP5 drivers, I believe Russ is correct.
http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts
http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers