On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 03:18:12PM -0700, Brian F. Kimball wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
> > License: GPL
> > License-details: see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> What if the license doesn't have a name?
Hmm, interesting question. Perhaps we call the first field
"License-name" and make it optional, and call the second "License" and
make it required.
> > > Copyright-non-freeness: # Brief details of non-freeness here
> > Again, "License-non-freeness:".
> I would much rather see a detailed account of why the package is in
> non-free in the package description, so that users can know what they're
> getting into *before* they download and/or install the package.
The idea that non-free packages should document why they're considered
non-free has already been rejected. This is just sort of the tag end
of the idea, trailing off. All we're really discussing at this point
is making the copyright file computer-parsable.
You can talk to the individual maintainers of non-free packages, and
see if they're willing to do this on a case by case basis, but it's
not going to be a requirement, so at most, you could file wishlist
bugs, and see what sort of reaction you get. (Don't hold your breath.)
I agree that the description would be a nice place to have such a
thing, if the maintainer felt it was worth the effort.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
