On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 14:37 +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Hi, Hi Daniel,
> > I have a package for a software, that is provided under an academic > license - free for non-profit organisations and academic use, not free > for profit organisations. > So I want to put a debconf template into > preinst, so the user MUST accept the license, before he installs the > package (and of course: to install the package). It is good that you want to inform users about a non-free license. But I'm not sure whether debconf questions are the best choice. Keep in mind that for noninteractive installations no debconf questions are shown. Then the default answer is used. If the default is "yes, accept license", then this can lead to users unknowningly accepting a non-free license. If the default is "no, refuse license", then this can lead to an unwanted refusal of the license. Which brings us to the next aspect: If the non-free license is refused, then the debian packager must make a choice between failing to install both the debian package and the non-free software itself, or failing to install only the non-free software while succeeding the installation of the debian package. The former can lead to users complaining about an interrupted noninteractive installation. The latter can lead to users complaining about a "broken" debian package because the software "doesn't work". > What is the better > alternative: (a) putting the whole license into the debconf template, so > the user can read the whole license OR (b) just leave a pointer where to > find the license and only ask, if the user accepts the license That depends on which version of the license applies. If the non-free software is entirely shipped with the debian package, then the applying license must be shipped with the debian package, and that version is to be presented to the user. If the non-free software is downloaded from the internet at debian package installation time, then a pointer to the online license must be used because that version then applies. > (AFAIK > flashplugin-nonfree uses this way). Not anymore. The flashplugin-nonfree package now has a warning in the package description instead. See the bug reports for details. > > What would you choose and why? I don't know what's best for your package, because I haven't seen your package yet. :) Maybe my explanations above help you to make your own choices. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
