On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:08:24 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > * Miriam Ruiz: > > > We should somehow tag those conflictive licenses with debtags, so that > > users can filter out the ones they don't wont easily. I don't object > > to having AGPL in Debian, but I don't plan to install anything under > > that license in my system, and AFAIK there are other people in the > > same situation as I. This wouldn't hurt those who consider if free, > > but at the same time would allow us to filter them out easily. > > Sure, and with the GFDL, it might be the other way round.
I don't think a select-which-licenses-you-like-or-don't-like approach could really work for the end user. A user could easily reject packages licensed under terms he/she doesn't consider Free (or just doesn't like), but there's no guarantee that the resulting archive (that is to say: main minus packages under license L) would be self-contained. After dropping packages under license L, many other packages could become uninstallable due to dependencies, or even FTBFS due to build-dependencies (and the latter is not easily detected by end users!). Moreover, what if some essential/priority:required package is under license L? I am convinced that the DFSG-free/non-free distinction has to be worked out Project-wide, rather than on a per-user basis. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND "nano-documents" may lead you to my website... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpaxu7GVQnBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
