Hi! Short reply on a simple topic: Am Sonntag, den 26.08.2007, 17:48 +0300 schrieb Juhapekka Tolvanen: > Which Creative Commons -licenses are DFSG-free and which are not? Which > versions of those Creative Commons -licenses are free and which are not? CC by and sa options (from version 3 at least) are considered DFSG free - that's also the reason why your mentioned ttf-konatu is in main, ftpmasters are well aware of that. There were quite some discussions going on between the CC and Debian people to get these parts into an acceptable state. > 1) Sometimes aptitude, vrms and other tools show some package in main, when > in reality it is not DFSG-free package at all; It happens all the time with > packages that come from some unofficial apt-get-source. Packages of > debian-multimedia.org are very good example of such packages. Yes, I noticed that annoyance too, especially since mostly everything in marillat's "main" repository is non-free. But given that it's an unofficial repository we can't regulate him for that (even though he is a DD). On the other hand, how should aptitude/vrms be able to figure out if it is an unofficial repository and not a mirror? If you have a solution for that problem pretty please file a bugreport against aptitude/vrms with it. > 2) First I must find some Debian-package that has exactly the same license > whose DFSG-freeness I am trying to figure out and then check out if it > has gone to main or non-free. But it is almost impossible: > packages.debian.org do not provide searching packages having certain > license. Sometimes Debian do not have any package having same license whose > DFSG-freenes I am trying to figure out. Even then you have to check the license closely for options and/or files in the package that fall under a different license and might be incompatible. Packaging stuff isn't easy and whoever told you that is wrong. So long, Rhonda
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil