Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:39:22 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 04:51:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > > would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a > > package? First of all, thank you for the kind reply. It seemed like the Christmas spirit has been blown away from this list. > I understand your need, but in this case (as opposed to the others you > mention) I believe a new field is not the right solution. The reason is > that in the general case too many information would need to be encoded > in such a field; that's why a machine interpretable copyright format has > been proposed [1]. Well, my proposal was for an optional field: who wants it, uses it. Anyway, I'm seeing that what I'm telling now has already been proposed for debian/copyright. The problem is still there though: the chance to see some information about the license of not installed packages not being connected to the Internet. > To avoid bloating the Sources (see other replies) the only possible way > in between would be to have such a field only for "simple cases" (e.g. > GPL-only packages). But I'm way in favour of no information over partial > information. Well, most of Debian packages have simple licenses (see: GPL, BSD, MIT). And, again, the field would be totally optional. > Maybe the related question is: once the debian/copyright format is > widespread enough, how can we make such an information available > archive-wide mechanically? That might be an alternative. Is there any progress on the CopyrightFormat proposal? I can't find anything on the wiki. Thank you. Buon Natale, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://snipurl.com/qa_page : :' : Linuxer #334216 | http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://www.debianizzati.org/ `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
