Hi. On "Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:04:02 -0400", Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you think that "All the packages in the other sections" should be > > also modified to "All the packages in non-free or contrib sections" ? > > No. Not really. OK, I see. > > What I wish to see is more explanation for users. Many ordinary users > > are not specialists in license. In many cases, they may not understand > > the meaning of a license correctly when they are just told "read the > > license by yourself". We can explain what is the problem briefly for > > them, I hope. > > As long as we are not attempting to interpret the license for them, I > suppose that this is okay. Personally, I think that we should limit our > "explanations" to a brief comment about why we think that the license > fails to meet the DFSG (for non-free) or which non-free package the > package causes the package to be consigned to "contrib". I think that we should provide explanations about "our" stance, in the form of "a brief comment" what you wrote above. > I really don't think that we should be commenting on the license other > than that. For one thing, if we start commenting on licenses, we're > likely to (unintentionally) upset or offend somebody. Furthermore, > it is easy to conceive of a maintainer misinterpreting a license and > explaining it incorrectly. We don't want to be in that position. Well, I can understand what you care about, and I agree with you here. Thanks for your comment and suggestions. -- Taketoshi Sano: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
