Hi, Quoting Jerome BENOIT (2016-01-05 08:25:47) > On 05/01/16 08:15, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11) > >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: > >>> Your second item has been brought up before with different > >>> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest > >>> in splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various other > >>> non-free sub components. > >> > >> Another one that is worth mentioning here --- which I discussed in the > >> context of non-free.org with Dafydd Harries and others --- is > >> introducing a debtags facet to capture the reason why a package is in > >> non-free. At least two hierarchies come to mind: 1) which point of DFSG > >> is not respected, and 2) which one of the 4 freedoms are not granted. > >> > >> I've had on my TODO list proposing the relevant debtags facets since at > >> least 2 years, but never found the time to actually do that. This is a > >> very actionable item: it is enough to follow the procedure for proposing > >> a new debtags. (Procedure that I cannot find right now, but IIRC it > >> includes coming up with a list of tag names + a list of at least N > >> packages, with N relatively low, that are already in the archive and > >> that would carry each tag.) > > > > while I would welcome this sort of information being captured using debtags, > > this would not help me if I wanted to tell apt which packages are okay for > > me > > and which ones are not because apt cannot set pin priorities according to a > > package's debtags, right? > > > > Also, can the reason why something is in non-free not be captured by > > increased > > and a more structured use of DEP-5 (machine-readable debian/copyright)? > > > > Certainly I'd welcome support of apt for both: debtags *and* licenses in > > debian/copyright :) > > > > My own motivation to have better control over non-free is my package > > ldraw-parts which is released under the "Creative Commons Attribution > > Licence > > version 2.0" and thus non-free. I can imagine that more people than just me > > would find that license acceptable enough. > > Are you suggesting some kind of scale ?
no. I don't think it's possible to find a scale from "dfsg-free" to "non-free" which would work for everybody. Different people feel differently about what is acceptable for them. I am talking about adding the metadata about which license code is released under and/or which DFSG freedoms it violates as proposed by Stefano in a machine readable way: either debtags or DEP-5 and make either or both of them understood by apt pinning so that I can tell my system which software to allow and which to not allow. Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
