Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jakob> no-source (example: Netscape, opera) > Jakob> no-commercial-use (example: zyxel) > Jakob> payment-required (example: opera<5.0) > Jakob> contains-crypto (example: RSA, gnupg) > Jakob> uses-us-patent (example: IDEA, GIF) > Jakob> uses-non-us-patent (example: IDEA) > Jakob> contaminates-result-license (example: old bison) > Jakob> no-sell-copies (problem for cd-rom or pre-installed system) > Jakob> requires-other-sw (example: wrapper script which is not itself DFSG) > Jakob> requires-specific-hw (example: driver licensed only for specific hw) > Jakob> other-problems (any problems not listed, alone or in addition) > > Someone got convicted in Texas for doing something vaguely > similar, on the grounds they were practicing law without a > licence. In fact, you shall be opening yourself to liability in the > US, since this is close to giving legal advice to people. > > This is one of the resons we have not previously classified > the non-free packages.
In a non-free package I maintain, I explain in debian/copyright why the package is in non-free, to aid CD-ROM distributors trying to decide whether they can include the package. Does this mean that I have to add a disclaimer about this not being legal advice as well? Should a note to this effect be included in policy section 2.1.6? In general, I'd like to see packages with non-free licences that "look free" to the unpractised eye explain in debian/copyright why they don't meet the DFSG; I think there was a discussion along these lines on debian-legal a few months back. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
