This message may or may not be pertinent in future given the uncertain
status of both non-free and non-US, but here goes anyway ...
When I see a package that's in non-free or non-US I often wonder exactly
why it's there. It would be really nice if every package explained why
it was where it was. And for this to be required by policy if such a
thing was appropriate.
In detail, I want this at the bottom of every package description in
non-free/non-US:
- if it's in non-US, explain what parts of the software use crypto,
since it's not always obvious.
- if it's in non-free for patent reasons, give the patent numbers and
the locations in which the patents are held. If it is DFSG compliant,
explain this. Explain which parts of the software embody the patents.
- if it's in non-free for DFSG non-compliance, explain which points of
the DFSG are violated and specifically why not.
Is this the best list? Should I take this to policy/devel?
If there is agreement that this is a good idea where should I take it
from here?
--
Matthew Tuck: Software Developer & All-Round Nice Guy
My experience is that in general, if there's jobs programming
in it, it's not worth programming in.
Ultra Programming Language Project: http://www.box.net.au/~matty/ultra/
